[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 134 (Thursday, September 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                              S E N A T E


Vol. 140


WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1994

No. 134


Senate


(Legislative day of Monday, September 12, 1994)

 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMIT AND ELECTION REFORM 
                  ACT OF 1993--MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the message from the 
House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I would like to briefly review the 
situation that confronts us and to explain to my colleagues how we came 
to this situation.
  We have been working for some time in this body on the issue and 
question of campaign finance reform, a very important issue for the 
American people. The way that campaigns are financed has become a 
matter of increasing concern to the American people, affecting the 
trust that the people have in this institution as the costs of 
campaigns have continued to skyrocket.
  Members of this body have had to spend more and more of their time 
raising money instead of dealing with the people's business. There is a 
perception that special interests have undue influence in a situation 
in which it requires so much money to run for public office in this 
country. And more and more of the money has not been coming from the 
people back home, the voters in the districts of those Members of 
Congress--the House Members and the Senators--but it has come from 
outside the boundaries even of the States which they represent. It has 
come more and more from political action committees, which give to 
incumbents in House races at the rate of 10 to 1, $10 to incumbents to 
every $1 to challengers and at the rate of 6 to 1 in Senate races, $6 
to incumbents for every $1 to challengers. And every year the problem 
gets worse. In 1992, the amount of money spent on campaigns by 
candidates running for Congress, the House of Representatives and the 
Senate, in this country increased by 52 percent to $678 million.
  This issue has not just been of concern recently, although I think 
concern continues to escalate as confidence in this institution 
continues to drop. Only 14 percent of the American people, according to 
the latest public opinion poll, now approve of the job that Congress is 
doing; 79 percent of the people when they look at the impact of money 
on the outcome of elections in this country, when they look at where 
the money is coming from, when they realize that the average American 
simply does not have the means to make large financial contributions to 
campaigns--79 percent look at these facts and say we do not believe 
that Congress represents or cares about people like us.
  Earlier in the afternoon I listened to the debate and I restrained 
myself from entering this debate because I did not want to take up the 
time or to participate in a post-cloture filibuster, which is what is 
going on here; an effort to make it impossible, by stalling for time, 
for the Congress of the United States to have an opportunity to act on 
this important issue this year in spite of the fact that a bipartisan 
majority of 60 to 38 passed this bill in June of 1993. In spite of the 
fact that by a vote of 62 to 38 cloture was imposed on this 
legislation, allowing us to vote on it when it came through this body 
before with a bipartisan majority, we are now being prevented from 
voting because of a filibuster.
  I restrained myself from entering into that debate because I think 
the American people need to know that this is not a debate. It is not 
being continued for the purpose of informing the American people or 
discussing the issue. This is a filibuster being staged for the purpose 
of preventing this Congress from acting on this important issue. But I 
do want to at least set one or two points in the record straight that 
have been made in the course of the debate today.
  First of all, those on the other side who criticized the bill as it 
passed the Senate--there is not a bill yet to criticize in the 
conference because the conference committee has not even been allowed 
to meet, so the criticisms are of a hypothetical bill that is not yet 
even before us. It was said the effort to enact spending limits in 
campaigns was an ``incumbents' protection plan.'' If there is any 
incumbents' protection plan, it is the law as it exists today, it is 
the current system. Why do I say that? This is not a matter for us to 
hypothesize about. The facts speak for themselves. In over 90 percent 
of the cases--and you can always find exceptions--in over 90 percent of 
the cases the candidate with the most money to spend in an election 
wins that election. Under the current system with no limits on 
spending, no limits on the amount of money that can be raised for 
campaigns, the average House Member raises five times as much as the 
average challenger and the average sitting Senator raises three times 
as much as the average challenger. As I mentioned, the PAC money flows 
in, not on a level playing field, not on an equal basis to incumbents 
and to challengers; it flows in to incumbents at a rate of 10 to 1.
  If you ever had an unlevel playing field, if you ever had an 
incumbents' protection plan, it is the system which allows for no 
limits on the amount of money you can raise and spend in campaigns. 
Why? Because incumbents will always have an advantage when it comes to 
raising money. We are here. Incumbents chair the important committees 
and important subcommittees that affect the economic interests of large 
numbers of groups across this country who have formed political action 
committees and who pour money into campaigns by the tens and hundreds 
of millions of dollars.
  So, as long as we have a system with no spending limits, the sky is 
the limit. The sky is the limit. We will have an incumbents' protection 
plan because of the advantages that incumbents have in raising 
unlimited amounts of money. Many incumbents would have been forced to 
have spent far less, millions of dollars less, in the last campaigns 
had the bill which passed the Senate been in place, a bill which puts 
on spending limits. Many incumbents would have been affected by the 
spending limits. Virtually no challengers were able to raise even the 
amount of money allowed under this law if passed.
  So the idea that the bill we are presenting is an incumbents' 
protection plan simply will not stand the light of day. We are trying 
to give challengers a chance. As long as there is a system that puts no 
limit on spending and what the special interest groups can contribute 
to campaigns, challengers will never have an equal chance. And that is 
why it is so hard to get campaign finance reform passed, because the 
current system favors incumbents. Between 85 and 90 percent of all 
incumbents in the House and Senate were reelected in the last election 
cycle in spite of major discontent with the way that Congress had been 
conducting itself. And the reason is money, money and more money--
poured into the coffers of incumbents who use their large war chests to 
discourage and even frighten away challengers.
  How often have we read those stories in the newspapers or seen them 
reported in the media: Sitting Senator, or sitting Congressman or 
Congresswoman, has a huge war chest; sitting on top of hundreds of 
thousands and even in some cases millions of dollars. And incumbents 
get out those stories in the media. They do it on purpose because they 
know it will frighten away challengers. And even if you have 
challengers who can perhaps match incumbents dollar for dollar inside 
the State where they live or inside the district they want to serve, 
they know that at the last minute hundreds of thousands of dollars can 
come pouring in from the political action committees from outside the 
State and overwhelm them. Why? Because they are new, they are trying to 
break into politics, they have new ideas, they want to come here to 
serve. And incumbents are already there; already with massive power in 
their own hands to affect the interest groups who pour in the money as 
a matter of insurance.
  So the record speaks for itself. If the current plan does not favor 
incumbents when incumbents have five times as much money to spend on 
campaigns as challengers, if the current system does not favor 
incumbents when by a ratio of 10 to 1 the PAC money is going to 
incumbents, what in the world do we call a plan that favors incumbents?
  The other thing I have to say is that I believe those who feel the 
expenditure of money is somehow the most important aspect of expression 
or free speech badly confuse what should be at the heart of the 
political debate. Yes, candidates should have sufficient access to the 
media to buy advertising, for example, to become well known. Yes, a 
challenger should have an opportunity to be able to advertise and 
present his or her views because incumbents have already had access, as 
has been said before, to the media--oftentimes using the perks that 
belong to sitting Members of Congress to gain access to the various 
media opportunities that we have here, the mass mailing privileges and 
other privileges.
  But that does not mean that challengers are served by having no 
limits. Our bill does not limit in any unreasonable way the amount of 
access that people can have. But surely campaigns ought to be more 
about ideas. They ought to be more about qualifications than they are 
simply about which candidate has the most money. What have we come to 
in this country if we feel that campaigns should be decided on the 
basis of who can most effectively raise and spend money instead of on 
the basis of which candidate has the best ideas? The best concepts? The 
greatest vision? The strongest qualifications? The most ability? The 
strongest character to serve this country and to guide us into our 
future? We are not well served by a system which, in the eyes of more 
and more of the American people, is simply putting major offices under 
our political system on the auction block for sale to the highest 
bidder.
  These are arguments that have not just been made today or this week. 
These are not arguments pro and con about the need to limit campaign 
spending--and that is at issue here. Those on the other side of the 
aisle who have criticized our proposal know full well that, because of 
a Supreme Court decision, we have to provide incentives in order to get 
candidates to voluntarily accept spending limits, to meet the standards 
set in the case of Buckley versus Valeo. This debate is not about 
whether or not we should have some incentives--for example, lower cost 
television time as we provide in this bill in order to keep any 
possible cost to the taxpayers to a minimum, or other incentives that 
are paid for by limiting deductions on lobbying and increasing lobby 
registration fees so we will not have any burden on the general 
taxpayers. That is not the issue in this bill.
  The real issue is shall we put limits on overall campaign spending? 
How much spending is enough? Has the quality of American political 
life, has the functioning of this institution, has the performance of 
our duties as U.S. Senators improved because we increase the amount 
that we spend on campaigns each and every election cycle? I remember 
when I first came here we were spending an average of $600,000 per 
election for a victorious campaign for the U.S. Senate. Then it went to 
$2 million and then it went to $3 million and now it is almost at $4 
million. And if you project out ahead 10 or 12 more years, it will be 
$8 million to $10 million to $12 million at the current rate of 
increase.
  Often I speak at high school commencements. And when I urge those 
students to consider careers in public service because they are so 
satisfying, when I urge those students to invest their lives in a way 
that will help them make a difference, when I urge some of them to 
consider running for Congress or for U.S. Senator or for Governor, what 
I do not tell them--and I do not have the heart to tell them--is that 
along with preparing yourself, learning as much as you can, having a 
good heart, wanting to serve, having good ideas, having the energy to 
get out and campaign, you better start thinking about how you are going 
to raise the $6 million or $8 million or, by the time they are old 
enough to qualify to run for these offices, how they are going to raise 
the $12 million on the average they are going to need to run for the 
U.S. Senate.
  I do not have the heart to tell them that. That is the issue. It must 
be stopped. This corrosive influence on our political system must be 
stopped. We can have adequate opportunity for candidates to have access 
to the media without requiring enormous amounts of money to run 
campaigns. We can allow more opportunities to challengers by having 
spending limits because it is the incumbents who are limited by 
spending limits, not the challengers. Most challengers do not have a 
hope of raising the amount of money allowed under this bill to run for 
office. Let us level the playing field.
  So it is an important question. It is the question of restoring trust 
in this institution, trust in the Congress, a sense of trust and 
commitment between the people of our country and their own Government. 
It should belong to them. The debate has been going on now for a long, 
long time. As I indicated we do not need more time to debate this. 
Surely we do not need more time to debate before the conference 
committee has a chance to present a bill to us that we can debate. We 
do not know all the details of the bill which might come out of the 
conference because the conference committee is not now being allowed to 
meet. But we debated these same issues. I can almost repeat word for 
word like a catechism the arguments made on the other side and the 
arguments that many are going to make in response because we have been 
going through this now for at least 11 years that I know about.
  In 1983 Senator Goldwater and I first introduced our bipartisan 
proposal to try to reduce campaign spending and the influence of 
political action committees on the American political process. In 1983, 
and every single year thereafter, that legislation or similar 
legislation has been reintroduced. It has passed one House or the 
other. We have had long debates in the night. We had a record number of 
cloture votes during the leadership of Senator Byrd who tried to bring 
the debate to a conclusion. We debated, and we debated, and debated. We 
have had filibuster after filibuster. When we finally passed a similar 
bill through both Houses it was vetoed by the President.
  Now we have passed a similar bill again through both Houses of the 
Congress and now we are simply seeking the right for the House and 
Senate to sit down together and see if they can work out a bill that 
will be acceptable to a bipartisan majority of both Houses. And in our 
informal discussions with the House leadership those from the Senate 
have continuously said we do not want a partisan bill; we do not want a 
bill that will not keep faith with those Members of the other party who 
voted to send this bill forward. We want a bill that will keep faith 
with those amendments which they offered and those principles for which 
they stood and we do not seek a bill to give partisan advantage simply 
to either side.
  Mr. President, since we have been debating these issues for 12 years, 
11 or 12 years, since year after year after year we have spent many 
hours, hundreds of hours debating this subject. Why then are we here 
tonight at 10:20 in the evening poised to go all night long debating it 
again? Is it to inform the American people after 11 years of debate and 
hundreds of hours of talking and cloture vote after cloture vote and 
filibuster after filibuster? The American people have not been placed 
on some diet, some factual diet when it comes to information about this 
issue. If anything, they are suffering from indigestion from too much 
political rhetoric and too much arguing for too many years and not 
enough deciding.
  The American people are fed up with this talking about things instead 
of doing something about the problems that we have. No. It is obviously 
not for debate. Then what is the purpose? Here is the situation we are 
in. Normally in the Senate, in almost every situation that I can 
remember during my 16 years here when we have a difference of opinion 
between the House and the Senate on a pending bill, the majority leader 
is given the authority on the basis of a unanimous-consent request--
this has happened in 99.9 percent of the cases--to state to the House 
that we disagree with their amendments, that we want to have a 
conference with them and then to appoint conferees to see if they can 
work out a reasonable bill. If they cannot, when this conference 
committee report comes back over here, we have the right to debate it. 
We will have all the details before us then. We will know exactly what 
the conference committee decided. We will debate it then. That is when 
we should debate it. Those that are opposed to it have a right to 
filibuster at that point. Unless we can muster 60 votes to bring the 
debate to a conclusion it will never come to a vote. And even then 
there is a right of 30 hours of debate after cloture is imposed on a 
conference committee report.
  Mr. President, clearly there will be a full and adequate opportunity 
to debate any bill that comes out of conference if any bill does come. 
Clearly there will be every right available to those who oppose this 
bill to oppose cloture. If they lose on cloture, then to debate every 
single aspect for at least 30 more hours of this bill so that the 
American people can follow it in great detail.
  What is happening here, Mr. President, in a very unusual step, those 
who have opposed this measure, although they are in the minority, 
although they are not even 40, certainly there are 60 votes--there were 
60 votes to pass this bill, and 62 votes to impose cloture when it 
first came through the Senator to the Senate--they are now 
filibustering the motion to disagree with the House amendments, the 
very amendments they themselves have criticized, amendments which allow 
PAC's to give more money, amendments which allow soft money, amendments 
which allow more public financing, amendments which allow incumbents to 
carry over war chests. If we were voting on the merits of whether or 
not we agree with the House amendments, I do not think there would be 
10 people say they prefer the House bill to the Senate bill.
  So what are we doing here? Why is there an attempt to block our 
opportunity to vote on a motion which says we do not like the House 
amendments? They are not popular on either side of the aisle in this 
body. There is an effort being made to prevent us from voting on that 
motion because of the feeling and the desire on the part of those who 
are making us debate at this moment and appearing on this filibuster 
that they do not want anything to pass. We had a vote. Well over 90 
Senators voted for cloture. But now we are going to have a postcloture 
filibuster with 30 more hours of debate.
  And those who have forced us into this 30 additional hours of debate 
know that next the majority leader must come forward and say he moves 
to request a conference with the House. And that is subject to 
filibuster. He will have to wait 2 days to file a motion for cloture on 
that motion. And then, if cloture is invoked by an overwhelming 
majority of this Senate, there is still the right for 30 more hours of 
debate after the majority have said we want to bring the debate to a 
close.
  So we are up to 60 hours. And then there is another motion that has 
to be made under our rules. Mr. President, it is always done; nearly 
always done by unanimous consent with no debate, and no time wasted. 
That is the motion to authorize the appointment of conferees. So the 
Senate can be represented in a meeting with the House. And that motion 
is subject to being filibustered and a cloture motion has to be filed 
after 2 days. Then if cloture is invoked, there is a right for 30 more 
hours of debate.
  So you have 30 hours, 60 hours, 90 hours, 48 more hours with 2 days 
in between, twice, 96 more hours, 186 hours. Then, Mr. President, after 
186 hours or perhaps a few more added in for other procedural delays, 
maybe 190 hours, we will have the right, Mr. President, to sit down 
with the Members of the House of Representatives to see whether or not 
we can work out a bill acceptable to both Houses and to a bipartisan 
majority; 190 hours.
  Mr. President, if we are then successful in working out a proposal 
that is fair and is just and deals with this problem on the massive 
amount of money being poured into campaigns, then we have to bring that 
proposal back to the Senate of the United States. And the motion to 
proceed to that conference report I believe can be filibustered. Then 
you have to have cloture. Then you have to have a vote. Then you vote 
on whether or not to pass the conference report. That is subject to 
filibuster, and that subject to the need to file a motion for cloture, 
and that is subject, even if you invoke cloture, to 30 more hours of 
debate on the conference report itself.
  Mr. President, everyone here knows that the Senate plans to complete 
action hopefully on the 7th of October and adjourn for the year. You 
start adding up that 30 hours, 60 hours, 90 hours, 190 hours, 220 
hours, another 24 hours to file a cloture motion, 250 hours, 260 hours.
  Now, Mr. President, does anyone really believe that all of this is 
going on because there is a feeling after 11 long years of debate on 
this issue, 11 long years, does anyone really believe with a straight 
face that we are here tonight because of a desire for the American 
people to hear more debate on this subject? We are here tonight because 
of a determination of a minority of Members in this Senate to block the 
possibility that any action will occur on this bill this year. It is a 
filibuster, pure and simple.
  When people go to a football game and it gets down to the final few 
minutes, and the team that is ahead has the ball, and they run out the 
clock by simply having the ball put into play and falling on it 
immediately in order to maximize the amount of time running on the 
clock, there is not anybody in the stands who believes that that team 
is trying to score. There is not anybody that knows the rule of 
football that does not know that team is running out the clock.
  Now, Mr. President, we are all adults here. We know what is going on. 
There is an effort to run out the clock with procedural delays to 
prevent action on a bill. Why would anyone do that? Mr. President, it 
seems to be happening on a number of issues. It is very disturbing to 
me.
  I do not make this comment as partisan. This Senator as everyone 
knows is not partisan. This Senator was one of two Democrats in this 
body that voted for the confirmation of Mr. Bork to be on the Supreme 
Court; severely criticized by his own party for doing so. This Senator 
was one of the handful of Senators on this side of the aisle that voted 
against the stimulus package, that voted against the budget proposed by 
this administration. Why? Because I did not think it was right. Time 
and time again I have been willing to break ranks with my own party to 
do what I thought was right.
  I do not believe we are sent here to be Democrats or Republicans 
first. I greatly admired the late Speaker Sam Rayburn. I knew him as a 
child. He was a great Democrat. But he defined being a great Democrat 
by saying, ``If you are going to be a great Democrat, you first have to 
be a great American.'' I would say if we are going to be a great 
Republican or a great Democrat we first have to be a great American. 
You have to love your country. You have to put it first.
  We are not here for the purpose of scoring political points. We 
should not be. We should be here for the purpose of doing the Nation's 
business and allowing important issues to be decided, and thinking 
about what we are going to say to the next generation the next time we 
make a high school commencement address about how much money they are 
going to have to plan to raise from which interest groups in order to 
have a chance to render public service as Members of the U.S. 
Congress. That is what we ought to be concerned about, Mr. President. 
There is an effort here to run out the clock. Why? Why does there seem 
to be a pattern developing here of running out the clock on almost 
every important issue that is still before us?

  Could it be, Mr. President, that there are those who for partisan 
advantage do not want the Congress to accomplish much this year, so 
that they can go to the people and say the Democratic Congress could 
not get much done in spite of the fact that they have a President and a 
majority in both Houses?
  Well, if you wanted to make that argument, Mr. President, one of the 
things you might do is run out the clock on important issues so you 
cannot get them decided. I say this as perhaps one of the most 
nonpartisan people in this Senate, perhaps one of the most criticized 
Members of the Senate on this side of the aisle for not standing up for 
my party often enough. But let us call a spade a spade. They are 
running out the clock on this bill, and on the desert bill, and on 
every other bill you can think about so that this Congress will not 
have a record of positive accomplishment.
  Well, Mr. President, I do not believe in that. I do not believe in 
strategies of running out the clock for partisan advantage, cheating 
the American people and the majority of the Congress of the right to 
decide important issues. I do not believe in playing those kinds of 
games.
  And I will tell you something else, Mr. President. The American 
people are intelligent. The American people know what is going on. One 
of the reasons that too many politicians are in trouble today is they 
have underestimated the common sense, the understanding, and the 
patriotism of the American people. They are way ahead of us most of the 
time. We struggle to catch up with their good will, their common sense 
and their patriotism. And they do not like tactics of running out the 
clock.
  Give us a chance, I would plead with my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, just give us a chance. This Senator will not bring a bill 
back here out of the conference committee, if we have a chance to meet 
in the conference committee, that breaks faith with those Members on 
the other side of the aisle who supported passage of this bill in this 
body in the first place. This Senator will not knowingly bring a bill 
back ever on a subject of this kind, on the subject of the electoral 
process of this country that seeks to provide advantage to my party 
over the other party. I will not do that. I do not believe in that. Nor 
do I believe my colleagues who have been working with me on this bill 
would do it either.
  Give us a chance. That is all we are saying. Give us a chance. I 
asked today could we not just vote on these two motions to reject the 
House amendments which are clearly amendments that nobody agrees with 
on this side of the Capitol, in both parties, and then vote on the 
motion to request a conference. And then let us come before all of us 
and say, if we go to conference, here is what we think the general 
framework of the agreement might be. And then if those on the other 
side of the aisle and those who oppose this bill feel that that is 
totally unacceptable, if those Republican Senators, for example, who 
voted to send this bill forward in the process say it is unacceptable, 
the principles we believe in have not been followed, then they can vote 
against the motion to appoint conferees. They can even still block us 
from going to conference.
  But why put us through 30 hours, 60 hours, 48 hours for 2 more days 
to lay down cloture motions. Why put us through over 100 hours of 
running out the clock? Why not let us have a chance to sit down on an 
important matter like this and see, see if we can work out a bill that 
will be fair. It is too important to play politics with it, too 
important to seek partisan advantage with it, and it should not happen 
that way.
  Let the record reflect, let the record reflect that if it is reported 
that this Congress ends without the passage of a meaningful campaign 
finance reform bill, let it be clear where the responsibility rests. If 
we make a good-faith effort and we sit down in a conference committee 
and we cannot reach an agreement either between House Democrats and 
Senate Democrats or if we cannot reach an agreement after honest effort 
between Members of the House and Members of the Senate of both parties 
on this bill, then responsibility can rest with us; we tried but we 
fell short.
  If we are not even given an opportunity to try, Mr. President, if we 
are not even given an opportunity to try because of the tactics of 
those who want to run out the clock, using every parliamentary trick in 
the book, then let the record show that the responsibility for the lack 
of success and the lack of action in this Congress on this major issue 
rests with those who use the tactic of running out the clock and only 
with those who use the tactic of running out the clock. They deserve 
the responsibility, and they deserve to be judged by it. They deserve 
to be judged on the basis that they would not even let us try, that 
they would not even let us have a vote on a product, on an effort to 
try to solve a serious problem at the heart of our political process.
  So that is why we are here. For any of the American people who are 
watching us on C-SPAN, that is why we are here. We are here because of 
partisan politics. We are here playing political games. We are here 
using procedures to run out the clock at a time when only 14 percent of 
the American people have confidence in us in the first place, at a time 
when the American people are more nonpartisan than they have ever been, 
at a time when the American people say to us behave like adults, quit 
being Democrats and Republicans, work together, try to find common 
ground, be fair with each other.
  In most places, most communities, when you have something to work out 
or a decision to make, you sit down. You debate it. You thrash it out. 
And finally you vote. You decide it. You do not go through cloture 
rules on motions to reject amendments and 30 hours of postcloture 
filibuster and 2 more days and more cloture votes and more filibusters 
and 30 more hours of postcloture filibuster and another motion and 
another 30 hours. The American people look at us and they ask, why 
cannot you people ever get anything done in Washington? Why do you just 
talk about things instead of solving problems?
  Well, as usual, the people are not all wrong. And I know one thing 
about this. The people are not fooled. When they tune in 20 minutes to 
11 and perhaps they will tune in again at 3 a.m. or 5 a.m.--I do not 
know how long it will take--or 6 o'clock tomorrow morning, or maybe 
they will sit with us all through the whole 30 hours of continuous 
session of the Senate as we try to run out the clock, those opposed to 
action try to run out the clock so we cannot have an opportunity to see 
if we can put something together, they will not be fooled. The American 
people will see through it. They will understand the strategy of 
filibusters and postcloture filibusters. They will understand what it 
means to run out the clock. They have seen it on ESPN. They see it 
nearly every football Saturday or Sunday. They know what it means to 
try to run out the clock and prevent anything from changing in the 
game.
  Now, Mr. President, I am prepared to vote on this motion now. I do 
not know why we cannot go ahead and vote on this motion now, vote on 
the additional procedural motion now. Let us come back and in the light 
of day openly lay out what we think the framework of a conference might 
be, if we can get enough agreement to have a conference. If we cannot, 
that is our fault. Maybe we cannot. If we cannot, if we fail, that 
responsibility is ours. But give us the opportunity at least to try 
even if we fail.
  Mr. President, I just simply want to say that if we are into a 
filibuster and therefore if the floor is left without those seeking to 
debate, the question will be put and the vote will be taken. If 
procedural attempts are made to kill time with quorum calls, those 
quorums will go live and we will have votes, not because we want to be 
unreasonable but simply because we think it is time to get on with the 
Nation's business and stop that old football strategy of running out 
the clock with postcloture filibusters so that those who want to 
criticize this Congress can go back at the end of it and say, see, I 
told you so; this Congress has no achievements. This Congress did not 
solve this problem.
  Well, Mr. President, those who are trying to run out the clock will 
bear the responsibility and they will certainly have the clear 
understanding of the American people who know what is going on here.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my good friend from Oklahoma for coming over 
and using up 40 minutes of our time. At any point during the course of 
the evening, if he would like to join this debate, we would be happy to 
have him. Time is certainly available should he want to use any of it. 
And I would encourage him to enter the debate once again.
  Senator Gorton has been waiting patiently in the Chamber. He like I, 
of course, know what this debate is about, about stopping taxpayer 
funding of elections. That is what is trying to be perpetrated here in 
the 11th hour of this Congress, and we are happy to discuss it tonight 
and at any other time.
  Mr. President, seeing Senator Gorton here, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, S. 3, the Senate version of changes in 
campaign laws, was passed by this body in June 1993, at least 15 months 
ago. The House proposal on this subject was passed in November 1993, 10 
months ago--well over 1 day for every hour that this set of proposals 
may be debated.
  Now, under normal processes in this Senate, on bills dealing with the 
substance of the law, a conference committee is appointed within hours, 
or at the most a few days after the second House of Congress has passed 
a bill on the same subject. The conference committee is appointed in 
order to attempt to reconcile the differences between those two bills. 
Generally, the composition of the conference committee reflects the 
party ratios in the two Houses. But this bill is not a bill of normal, 
ordinary substantive law. This is a bill about the way, the methods, 
the rules surrounding candidacy for office in the House of 
Representatives or the Senate. And as such it is of great interest to 
each Member, and it is, of course, most tempting on the part of any 
majority party to rewrite those rules to its own benefit.
  Mr. President, I believe firmly that is the reason that for 10 months 
after the passage of the House version of this bill no attempt was made 
to appoint conferees from both parties to discuss the subject. The 
majority party in each House made a conscious decision that before a 
conference committee was appointed a handful of Members of each House 
from the majority party only, behind closed doors and informal rather 
than formal meetings, would determine what was best for that party in 
its attempt to change laws relating to elections. Unfortunately, 
unfortunately for that partisan process, members of the majority party 
in each House had profound differences as to what changes would be most 
advantageous to members of those parties in the two Houses of Congress.
  But on one issue they were resolved. Members of the minority party 
would not be consulted in that process, and it is for that reason, and 
for that reason only, that we are here this evening. The distinguished 
junior Senator from Kentucky, who has not only spent countless hours, 
days, and months on this issue, but is clearly an acknowledged expert 
on the details of these bills and on their impact on the political 
process, was clearly not wanted in any of those discussions.
  We are here now late in this session of Congress to appoint a 
conference committee for purely formal activities. That conference 
committee will be called upon to meet only once and only after the 
majority party in each House has determined to the last comma what is 
to be included in the bill presented to both Houses of Congress for 
final passage, and it is for that reason, and that reason only, that we 
are here.
  Had the majority party been willing to consider the views of the 
great bulk of the Members of the minority party in either House, this 
conference committee would have been appointed 10 months ago and almost 
certainly would have completed its work in a relatively short period of 
time after that appointment.
  The distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma has spoken about not 
losing faith with his bipartisan majority. What that means is with a 
tiny handful of Members from this side of the aisle who, for one reason 
or another, were willing to agree with the original S. 3 that passed 
the Senate, no serious consultations have ever been undertaken with the 
leadership of this party or with the distinguished junior Senator from 
Kentucky.
  It is the firm belief of this Senator that the greatly needed and 
intensely sought for appropriate neutral bipartisan reform of our 
election campaign laws will only occur when the effort is truly 
bipartisan in nature; that is to say, when it represents the considered 
views of the majority of Members of each party in each House of 
Congress and when the ultimate product imposes the same rules upon 
Members of both Houses of Congress, unlike the bizarre creature which 
is certain to result from the conference committee sought by the senior 
Senator from Oklahoma which will create radically different rules for 
elections conducted for Members of each of the two Houses of the 
Congress of the United States.
  No such truly bipartisan consultations were undertaken in the last 
Congress. No such truly bipartisan consultations have taken place 
during the course of this Congress and, as a result, it is impossible 
to conceive that the conference committee sought here would deal 
fairly, dispassionately and in a bipartisan or nonpartisan fashion with 
the issue that is before us in the course of these bills.
  Mr. President, I intend to return to this subject to discuss the 
blatant unconstitutionality of the bill which was passed some 15 months 
ago by the Senate, as well as its obvious unfairness during the course 
of the next number of minutes. But I do have one, two, three other 
subjects which I feel to be urgent and which I intend to speak to at 
the present time.


                        Disastrous Forest Fires

  One of those concerns the disastrous forest fires in the States of 
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana during the course of a long, 
dry, hot summer.
  Mr. President, during the course of this past summer, forest fires 
have burned more than 3 million acres of land in the Western United 
States, double the number of acres burned in the previous year. In 
Washington State alone, hundreds of thousands of acres of forest lands 
have burned. These fires created an emergency situation in my State of 
Washington and in the other three affected States as well.
  Let me reiterate and reemphasize that this is an emergency situation, 
one which deserves an emergency response. You have only to talk to the 
people who live in the areas of my State destroyed by these fires to 
understand why the Federal Government must immediately begin to restore 
the health of our forests. Let me give you an example of how important 
this issue is to people in the State of Washington.
  I received a letter from the Okanogan County commissioners recently, 
and it reads in part:

       The recent forest and range fires that burned thousands of 
     acres in north central and central Washington have had a 
     devastating effect on local economies. The Okanogan County 
     board of commissioners urges a quick response to save the 
     economic value of these fire-damaged timber stands. 
     Deterioration of these damaged areas begins immediately, so 
     timing is very important. We request fire damage timber be 
     harvested on a select-cut basis and restoration begin as soon 
     as reasonable.

  Mr. President, these are the words of the Okanogan County 
commissioners. It is hard to miss the urgency of their message, and it 
is this message of urgency that I heard from community leaders across 
the fire-ravaged areas of my State of Washington. The message to the 
Federal Government is clear and cogent: Get in quickly, get up the fuel 
load, conduct the salvage operations and restore the health of our 
forests.
  I say with some gratification and relief that administration 
officials, especially those in the U.S. Forest Service itself, after 
touring burned areas in my State, publicly stated that the Forest 
Service itself must begin to address forest health issues, specifically 
thinning, salvaging, and prescribed burning.
  I say this with relief because almost the total direction of the U.S. 
Forest Service in this administration has been to restrict, to cut back 
on, to eliminate harvesting, or even the salvage of dead and downed 
timber in the national forests of the State.
  This summer, however, was a wake-up call to the Forest Service, just 
as it has been, most regrettably, to the people of the Northwest 
States.
  In any event, Jim Lyons, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for 
Natural Resources and Environment is quoted in an August 13, 1994, 
Seattle Post Intelligencer article as saying:

       Forest management, rather than being the evil as some would 
     portray, can be used to improve forest health.

  Lyons went on to say that he ``is also pushing for increased thinning 
and salvaging of downed timber.''
  Forest Chief Jack Ward Thomas has echoed the statements made by Mr. 
Lyons.
  Yesterday, in written response to a request from the Speaker of the 
House, Tom Foley, Assistant Secretary Lyons again spelled out the 
administration's strong commitment to conducting salvaging and thinning 
operations to restore forest health. And I wish to share that letter 
with the Senate:

       Dear Mr. Speaker, thank you for expressing your concern 
     about the current condition of our western national forests. 
     I share your concern and sense of urgency about this 
     situation in the West. The wild fires affecting Eastern 
     Washington and other Western States are symptomatic of the 
     excessive fuels----

  Mr. BOREN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. GORTON. ``In areas of the region''----
  Mr. BOREN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator desist?
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Washington has the floor. Does the 
Senator from Washington yield the floor?
  Mr. GORTON. I have not yielded the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Washington has the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. ``I wanted to reassure you that I have taken aggressive 
actions to deal with the situation.''
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I rise to call for the regular order of 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct for 
calling for the regular order of debate. Under the rules and precedents 
of the Senate, postcloture debate must be germane, and the Senator from 
Washington is not speaking to the subject of the debate.
  The Senator from Washington does have the floor. But his comments 
must be, in the precedents of the Senate, on the subject of the debate.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as I said just a few moments ago, the 
first and overwhelming objection to the proposals before us at the 
present time have to do with the blatant unconstitutionality, not only 
of S. 3 but of its House counterpart. And because we are discussing 
questions and issues related to the exercise of political debate, 
debate which is at the heart of the first amendment that guarantees 
freedom of speech, it seems to this Senator that we should start by 
examining the constitutional implications of the bills proposed and 
considered here this evening.
  This issue is so central to myriad problems created by the bill 
passed by the majority party that it merits substantial and extended 
attention. I want my distinguished colleagues and the American people 
truly to understand all the abysmal and unconstitutional provisions 
that this body has already passed and which are undoubtedly to be 
included because they are central to the designs of the majority 
included in any future bill that comes before this Congress.
  In 1976, the Supreme Court decided a case entitled Buckley versus 
Valeo. In that Buckley decision, the Supreme Court reviewed the 
constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act under the 
constitutional portions under which we live today.
  That act concerned the election of the President, the Vice President, 
and Members of both Houses of Congress. A large group of disparate 
plaintiffs attacked one or more portions of that law: The American 
Civil Liberties Union, the Conservative Union, the Libertarian Party, 
and a number of others.
  Their principal challenges revolved around the mandated spending 
limits which were included in that bill. And it is, of course, the 
attempt by indirection to mandate spending limits which is at the heart 
of these present proposals and, certainly, is central to the arguments 
of the senior Senator from Oklahoma.

  But, in 1976, the Supreme Court struck down the Presidential campaign 
system as unconstitutional and with it similar limits on spending for 
congressional races. The Supreme Court determined that campaign 
spending, which is primarily for the purpose of communication with 
constituents, is analogous to speech. The Supreme Court said that 
campaign spending is speech. This is a vitally important point.
  Speech, as we all remember from elementary school on, is protected by 
the first amendment to the Constitution. The essential holding of the 
Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo was that mandated spending 
limits, limits on campaign spending, amounted to limiting speech. They 
restrict the total amount of speech available to candidates by limiting 
what each candidate can spend on communication. They ration speech. 
That was an attempt on the part of the Government of the United States 
to ration free speech.
  The Court inevitably concluded that spending limits by themselves are 
unconstitutional. Congress cannot, the Court said, force candidates to 
spend--or rather to speak--in only rationed amounts. In that decision, 
however, the Court found it to be constitutional for the Government to 
entice candidates through the provision of subsidies into accepting 
spending limits. Notice the difference: Candidates cannot be forced 
into accepting rationed speech but can freely choose to limit their own 
spending. This is the basis for today's Presidential campaign system. 
In exchange for complying with truly voluntary spending limits, 
candidates can receive generous subsidies from the Federal Treasury. In 
essence, of course, for spending limits to be truly voluntary, the 
Government must use a carrot and not a stick. There must be incentives. 
Rather, the Government must give incentives, not dole out punishments. 
Under our present Presidential system, if a candidate chooses not to 
abide by the spending limits, he or she does not have to do so. That 
candidate will simply not get the benefits provided by the American 
taxpayer. But the candidate is not penalized in any other way. There is 
no stick, there is no Big Brother Government watching closely to dole 
out harsh punishments.
  This situation has in fact taken place on a number of occasions. Ross 
Perot, John Connally, and Eugene McCarthy all decided not to abide by 
spending limits and not to use taxpayer dollars to fund their 
campaigns. They were not punished for their decisions. Their opponents 
simply were generously rewarded by providing taxpayer benefits in 
exchange for their decisions to comply with the spending limits.
  But what does the majority party's bill do for congressional races in 
this connection? Is it structured like the Presidential system and does 
it, therefore, meet the constitutional tests set forth by the Supreme 
Court in Buckley versus Valeo? The answer is an overwhelming and 
resounding ``no.'' No, the scheme imagined by this bill is not 
structured like the Presidential system. No, it does not meet the 
constitutional tests set forth by the Supreme Court. In the past, the 
majority party proposed what is known as ``communications vouchers'' as 
incentives. Communications vouchers equal to 50 percent of the general 
election limit would be given to candidates who agree to the spending 
limits. Candidates would use these vouchers--which are widely known as 
food stamps for politicians and are, on policy, undesirable but clearly 
not unconstitutional--to purchase advertising time. The broadcasters 
would then redeem these vouchers for their face value at the U.S. 
Treasury.
  But, even the majority party was deeply concerned about the costs of 
such vouchers. Billions of dollars would be needed to pay for this new 
entitlement program over the course of just a few elections. And that 
is just what it is, an entitlement program, an entitlement program for 
politicians, just at the time at which voters are wondering when the 
administration is going to get around to changing welfare as we know 
it. A new welfare program for politicians is not what the voters have 
in mind. So, the value of the communications vouchers was shrunk, and 
shrunk, and shrunk, down from 50 percent of the general election limit 
all the way to 20 and 25 percent in succeeding proposals.
  The majority party then faced a dilemma. As the value of the 
communications vouchers dropped, so did the incentive for candidates to 
comply with the spending limits. Unlike the Presidential system in 
which candidates receive a generous set of benefits, the congressional 
system would use small and relatively unattractive benefits to induce 
candidates to comply with the spending limits. And, of course, most 
candidates would refuse to do so.
  So what to do? Well, here came the stick; out came the penalties. 
Under the next proposal, if a candidate chooses not to comply with 
spending limits, gone are the broadcast discounts and gone are the 
mailing discounts. But here to stay is a massive infusion of tax 
dollars to his opponent when the candidate exceeds his rationed speech 
level. Here to stay is tax money given to an opponent to counteract an 
independent expenditure. Here to stay are tag lines in commercials, 
required tag lines, stating ``This candidate has not agreed to 
voluntary campaign spending limits.'' And here to stay are additional 
Federal Election Commission reporting requirements. These are some 
pretty heavy sticks.
  What we have is a system under which, if a candidate chose not to 
comply with the rationed speech limits, he is to be penalized. Not only 
does his opponent receive communications vouchers, but the candidate 
himself is penalized first by losing his own benefits, and second by 
seeing his opponent flooded with even more taxpayer dollars. Even a 
casual observer will recognize that this is wholly unlike the 
Presidential system that the Supreme Court found to be constitutional.
  But the bill gets worse. When S. 3 was under consideration on the 
Senate floor, conservatives in the Senate still demanded an end to most 
public funding of campaigns. They knew it would never fly with the 
American people. They knew that food stamps for politicians would so 
anger the American people that they had to back off. So in the proposal 
passed by this body last June, the communications vouchers were gone. 
The new entitlement that was created was gone. And so was the carrot. 
In place was an ingenious--as ingenious as it was outrageous--new tax; 
a tax on speech.
  We had already been through a rather bruising battle on taxes. Last 
year Congress considered the biggest tax increase in the history of the 
country. Every imaginable tax was considered by the administration for 
inclusion in the tax bill. There did not seem to be any end of them--a 
Btu tax, a gas tax, a Social Security benefits tax, a payroll tax, 
inheritance taxes, higher corporate taxes, higher individual income 
taxes, even a national sales tax. The list goes on and on.
  The imagination and the creativity of the majority party was 
astounding. But this time they came up with something that amazed 
everyone--a tax on the sound and the words of a political campaign, a 
tax on speech. Under this new law, under this proposal, a political 
campaign would have only two choices. First, to be bound by a so-called 
voluntary spending limit, or, second, to be taxed at the corporate 
rate, currently 35 percent. What happened to the carrot? What happened 
to the voluntariness of spending limits? Gone.
  With the new speech tax, any semblance of the spending limits as 
voluntary and any slim chance that anyone would think this system 
constitutional were gone. Obliterated is a better word. The Senate's 
adoption of the speech tax dropped any pretense that the spending 
limits in the bill are voluntary. Gone are the carrots; out comes the 
stick. Oh, boy, what a stick.
  Let us compare the Senate-passed version of S. 3 with the 
Presidential system. To restate the Supreme Court's position, campaign 
spending is indistinguishable from campaign speech. Campaign spending 
is speech. It is therefore unconstitutional to limit campaign spending 
just as it is unconstitutional to limit free speech. They are one and 
the same--inseparable.
  Nevertheless, the Court held in Buckley versus Valeo that candidates 
could be enticed to limit their speech by a generous taxpayer-funded 
subsidy. The crucial point is that the limits had to be entirely 
voluntary. There could be enticements, but no coercion and no 
punishment for a failure to take those enticements.
  That is how the Presidential system works. The public subsidy is so 
generous that most candidates agree to comply. But if they do not, they 
are not penalized and their opponents would receive no additional 
benefits above what they have already contracted for. Whether to give 
benefits to the opponent is solely determined by his or her own 
decision to live within the voluntary spending limits.
  Applying those standards to the Senate-passed version of S. 3, and, 
in addition, to the House-passed H.R. 3, both bills are clearly 
unconstitutional. Punishment after punishment is imposed on any speech 
that is deemed to be excessive. Candidates are not enticed into 
compliance, they are taxed into submission. This is clearly and 
blatantly in conflict with the ruling as well as the spirit of Buckley 
versus Valeo.
  But, if, indeed, the argument made by the majority party that this 
certainly meets a constitutional question, what is the logical 
conclusion? Why, instead of banning free speech, let us just tax it. If 
we can tax political speech, we can tax any kind of speech, anyplace 
and under any circumstances. Any type of speech that someone does not 
like, let us just impose a tax on it. Is it too much? Is it annoying? 
Is it on the wrong side of the political spectrum? Is it in a place 
where we would rather be free of speech? Do not worry about it, let us 
just tax it.
  If Congress should pass this bill and should the President sign it, 
there is no doubt whatsoever that the Supreme Court will strike it 
down. I am amazed that even an argument has been made in this Chamber 
for its constitutionality.
  I know the distinguished junior Senator from Kentucky will be a part 
of that challenge. But I suspect he will find himself a relatively 
small part of such a challenge, as there will be dozens of 
organizations interested in free speech, rivaling themselves in time to 
get into court with such a challenge.
  Does the Senator form Kentucky wish to ask a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will just yield for an observation on 
the constitutional question? It is, of course, our fervent desire that 
we will not get to that point. But he is certainly correct. I commend 
him for making the observation that if this unfortunate monstrosity 
were to become the law of the land, it would not be the law of the land 
very long. Of course, that is not a good reason--I am sure my friend 
from Washington would agree--to vote for it, because we have sworn to 
uphold the Constitution and not to vote for things that clearly are 
unconstitutional. And that is certainly no argument for passing it. But 
the Senator from Washington is certainly correct that there would be a 
small army of coplaintiffs in any litigation challenging the 
constitutionality of this curious proposal.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for that observation, 
the most important portion of which, I think, is his statement that 
Members of the Congress of the United States do not fulfill their sworn 
duties simply by saying, ``Let us pass whatever we would like under a 
given set of circumstances and let the courts take care of whether or 
not it is constitutional.''
  In the early days of the Republic some of the longest and most 
spirited debates in this body were on the constitutionality of a wide 
range of proposals. And when a majority of Members of the Senate of the 
United States determined after careful consideration and debate that a 
particular proposal did not meet with constitutional muster, they voted 
against the proposal and defeated it. As a consequence, I think far 
fewer acts of Congress were turned down by the courts of the United 
States because the Congress itself regarded that part of its duty as 
being paramount. I believe it to be so today. It is insufficient to say 
let the Supreme Court decide it. We need to decide that question for 
ourselves.
  It seems to this Member at least, as it does to my friend from 
Kentucky, that a tax on free speech is so blatantly unconstitutional 
that it should not require our being here to debate it. It never should 
have been brought up in the first place.
  Mr. President, I have another colleague ready to speak on this issue. 
So I will save the other of my remarks on this subject for a future 
time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me thank my distinguished colleague 
from Washington for his contribution to this great debate, not only 
today, but at various intersections in the past. He has been a strong 
voice for adhering to the Constitution.
  I see that our friend and colleague from Idaho is here.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, during my recent visit to the State of Idaho the 
people of the State of Idaho convinced me that they were concerned 
about the nature of politics in this country. Likewise, the people of 
America are unhappy about the Congress of the United States. Only 25 
percent of our constituents believe that we are doing a good job. They 
dislike the perception of the abuses of power that they see on Capitol 
Hill. And they feel that Washington, DC, has lost touch with America. 
They feel we have not sufficiently addressed the real issues facing 
America like spending, and the deficit, and real crime reform.
  The people of Idaho did not once suggest to me that they should be 
taxed to contribute to campaigns across the country. As a matter of 
fact, I cannot remember a single incident where anybody asked me to tax 
them any more at all. But apparently Congress just does not get it. The 
message that I hear from America is a message of budget cutting, of 
reducing the deficit, not of increasing their debt to the Federal 
Government for the benefit of politicians. That is exactly the wrong 
message for this Congress to send to America. The people of America 
hate the idea of financing elections.
  What is wrong with the majority's campaign finance reform 
legislation? Senate bill 3 was not a bill designed for the public good. 
But rather this bill was designed for the good of incumbents. We have 
all heard how this bill was designed to protect Democrat office 
holders. The name of this bill perhaps should not be the Campaign 
Finance Reform Act but rather the Incumbent Democrat Employment Act, or 
IDEA.
  Mr. President, this bill is a bad idea--a bad idea for all of 
America. It is an idea whose time not only has not come but hopefully 
will never come to pass.
  Have the American people really decided this bill was a good idea? It 
is being sold to the people of America as voluntary campaign finance 
reform? But where is the voluntariness in this? Are the contributions 
under this bill voluntary for the public? Do the people really want to 
spend their money on politicians rather than on reducing the deficit or 
improving the infrastructure or paying for the education of our 
children? What kind of cynical, self-serving legislation is being 
suggested here?
  If I am not mistaken, it was Otto von Bismark who said that ``You 
should never watch laws or sausage being made.'' There is more pork 
sausage in this bill than in a meat market. I do not think the American 
taxpayer wants to provide food stamps for politicians.
  This conference the majority would like to proceed to 15 months after 
the Senate passed this bill, 10 months after the House passed its bill, 
would be a sham. The minority will have no input. Its product will be 
presented as a fait accompli. That is precisely the idea. That is what 
is being designed.
  The majority party leaders in the Senate and the House have been 
conferencing the campaign finance bills among themselves for the past 
10 months. Most of the time, according to press reports, they were 
deadlocked among themselves over PAC moneys.
  Evidently, after all the Democrat discussions over PAC's, taxpayer 
financing and the rest, the majority leadership has come to agreement 
on just how they are going to go about forever severely limiting the 
Republican Party's chances of bringing our message to the people. They 
have decided how to give special interests a voice and silence the 
American people. The majority party leaders have come to or are nearly 
in agreement. They now want a formal conference to ratify this product. 
There is no other explanation for waiting until Congress is just about 
to adjourn to appoint conferees 15 and 10 months after action has been 
taken in the respective bodies.
  If a majority seriously wanted a bipartisan conference report, 
conferees would have been appointed months ago. These tactics are 
particularly unfortunate because they reinforce the perception that 
this campaign finance effort is not really about reform but is in fact 
a partisan maneuver to rig the election laws to the majority party's 
advantage. Perhaps we will need an ``Operation Restore Democracy'' 
right here.
  Nonparty soft money is left virtually unscathed by the House bill. 
And only a last-minute amendment in the Senate even begins to address 
the issue in the Senate-passed bill. Corporations operating under 
section 501(c) of the Tax Code and labor unions would not only have 
their power to influence elections preserved under the Senate and House 
bill but their power would in fact be enhanced.
  Under the majority party's spending limit schemes, while private 
citizens seeking to support candidates of their choice would be 
squeezed out of the process and candidates would be constrained by 
spending limits, special interests would be able to spend an unlimited 
amount to influence the outcome of elections. Spending limits not only 
force campaign funds in independent expenditures and undisclosed and 
unregulated soft money they also impair the ability of challengers to 
successfully compete against incumbents.
  Proponents of spending limits cite statistics showing that incumbents 
usually outspend challengers. Comprehensive studies, however, of 
election results and campaign spending over the last several cycles 
reveal that it is not necessary for challengers to spend more than or 
even as much as an incumbent in order to win. What is imperative is 
that a challenger be able to spend enough to get his or her message out 
and convince enough voters that it is time for change. Studies show 
that the amount every successful challenger must be able to spend is 
frequently more than the spending limits in the House and Senate bills 
would allow. That is the key point, Mr. President. Studies show that 
the amount a successful challenger must be able to spend is frequently 
more than the spending limits in the House and Senate bills would 
allow.
  Is that mere coincidence? I doubt it. If you really want to address 
the inequities inherent in the present system, a system that protects 
incumbents and stifles challengers, then we should have passed Senate 
bill 7, the Comprehensive Campaign Finance Reform Act introduced by the 
Republican leader and cosponsored by a majority of Senate Republicans 
which contained a challenger seed money provision. This provision would 
have permitted the national political party committees to use a special 
coordinated fund to match early in-State contributions to challengers 
up to a total of $100,000. But this approach, which would be real 
reform, was rejected by the majority party.
  Clearly neither the House nor Senate bills would reform the campaign 
finance system. ``Reform,'' the term itself, suggests improvement. If 
truth in labeling applied to bill titles, those bills would be known as 
the ``Campaign Finance Deform Acts.'' Both of those bills would 
dramatically change the campaign finance system at great cost to 
taxpayers and at the price of constitutional freedoms and a competitive 
electoral process. Such change is not reform of the sort Americans 
would like to see us enact into law.
  Mr. President, there is a bipartisan desire for campaign reform. The 
Republicans are constantly accused of gridlock. But refusing to preside 
over the destruction of the multiparty system is not gridlock. Gridlock 
stems from the majority party's insistence on spending limits and 
taxpayer financing. In fact, the majority party itself has caused 
gridlock on this issue with its delay in resolving the PAC differences 
among its own Members.
  There is common ground in other campaign finance issues which could 
form the basis for a meaningful reform measure. For the sake of the 
American people and the restoration of public esteem of this 
institution, I would hope that we could someday dispense with the 
taxpayer-funded spending limits and get on with the job of truly 
reforming campaign finance.
  If Americans feel that Congress does a poor job at representing them 
now, what makes this body feel that by lining our campaign pockets with 
the taxes of hard-working Americans will convince them that they are on 
the way to better representation in the future?
  If advertising is the meat of modern politics, all we are doing is 
providing those food stamps for politicians. And if taxpayer funding of 
existing Federal Government programs are not bad enough, here comes 
taxpayer funding for funding of incumbent campaigns. With the name 
identification that an incumbent historically takes into an election, 
it is safe to say that the incumbent Congress is voting itself an 
almost automatic reelection and forcing all of the American people, 
Republican, Democrat, independent, to fund this scheme.
  The use of taxpayer funds in Senate bill 3 is decidedly one-sided, 
and it is a bad idea. With a $4 trillion debt it boggles the mind that 
this Congress could seriously consider spending hundreds of millions of 
dollars on this bill.
  Without question, any of the proposed taxpayer-funded spending limits 
bills will carry an enormous price tag. The cost varies according to 
whose estimate you believe. But they are all huge. It is important to 
consider an observation that the Congressional Budget Office made last 
year while trying to estimate the proposed Senate bill's cost. CBO 
observed that ``the cost of providing benefits under the system is 
highly uncertain.''
  It is uncertain because it depends on how many candidates there are 
and how many would choose to participate in this new politicians' 
entitlement program. There are countless scenarios to consider, all of 
which would change the price tag. A conference report based on the 
Senate- and House-passed campaign finance reform bills would create an 
entitlement program for politicians. Candidates of a major party, third 
party, and independent candidates would agree to abide by spending 
limits and raise the minimal threshold amount and would be entitled to 
a host of benefits.
  The cost of these benefits really is not foreseeable. Can anyone 
really predict how many candidates there will be in 1996 or 1998 or the 
year 2000? Do you realize that there were 1,200 more congressional 
candidates in 1992 than in 1990? A stunning increase that was not 
foreseen. Who can know how many would have accepted matching funds had 
they been available? Many might have been wary of using tax dollars to 
fund their campaigns. On the other hand, hundreds or even thousands of 
additional candidates might have run as independent or third-party 
candidates because of the availability of tax dollars to fund 
campaigns. There are so many variables to consider but even the lowest 
estimates entail hundreds of millions of dollars.
  Mr. President, as I have noted, a precise cost forecast is impossible 
because, first, there is no final bill, and, second, the variables such 
as the third party or independent candidates, the independent 
expenditure and excessive spending counterbalancing are by their very 
nature unpredictable.
  Nevertheless, several cost analyses have been done, each weighing the 
variables differently. Now, the Democrats have estimated that it would 
cost $90 million every election cycle just to provide matching funds, 
which would be $200,000 per general election cycle to each candidate in 
the House. It is not clear what rationale was used in arriving at the 
$90 million estimate, but the Republican Policy Committee has estimated 
a Government cost per 2-year election cycle ranging from a low of $207 
million to a high of just under $300 million, depending upon the 
variables. An additional $50 million expense is expected to be incurred 
by broadcasters due to the 50-percent broadcast discount.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it would cost $189 
million in 1996 alone if both the House and Senate bills provide 
matching funds and would increase to $203 million in 1998. CBO appears 
to make low-ball assumptions as to the variables, the candidates, et 
cetera.
  Taxpayers are catching on to the abuses and inadequacies of the 
taxpayer funded Presidential system. That is why over the past 2 
decades the vast majority of the American people chose not to check the 
``Yes'' box on their Federal tax forms to designate $1 from taxes that 
they already owed to the Federal Government to go to the Presidential 
election campaign fund.
  The checkoff rate was so anemic that the fund was nearly bankrupted 
after the 1992 election, and that is why the budget bill last year 
tripled the checkoff figure from $1 to $3.
  So what do people get for their tax dollars in the Presidential 
system? A veritable parade of nonpartisan and highly knowledgeable 
witnesses have testified before the Senate Rules Committee in the past 
few years stating that the Presidential system of spending limits does 
not work.
  The majority party proposals in both the Senate and House sought to 
model Congressional elections on the Presidential debacle. The ultimate 
goal of taxpayer funded spending limit proponents is to replicate the 
Presidential system for Congress for 535 races--thousands of 
candidates, more lawyers, more accountants, more auditors. One does not 
have to be a scholar or a lawyer or a constitutional genius to figure 
out that American taxpayers are not eager to pay for our campaigns. 
Eighty percent of taxpayers are not, are not checking off $1 or $3 from 
taxes that they already owe to go to the Presidential candidates, nor 
are they clamoring to pay for our Senate campaigns, yet the Senate and 
the House proposals would cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of 
dollars.
  Mr. President, virtually every reputable scholar who has studied the 
issue believes spending limits are bad policy. They do not work, and 
their intended effect is antidemocratic.
  Mr. President, what is really bizarre is forcing taxpayers to pay for 
a proven disaster. Not only should we not force taxpayers to pay for 
Congressional campaigns, we should reconsider the system which forces 
taxpayers to pay for Presidential campaigns and those quadrennial 
extravaganzas known as the party conventions. As a taxpayer funded 
spending limit proponent observed at the time, the campaign finance 
debate had shifted away from spending limits and now is centered on 
taxpayer financing. Taxpayer financing of campaigns.
  If you want spending limits, then you are going to have to make the 
taxpayers pay for them. They will not voluntarily pay for it, so you 
are going to have to force them to pay for it. However, since taxpayers 
have become increasingly hostile to the whole idea of taxpayer 
financing of campaigns, the proponents of spending limits had to 
scramble to duck the taxpayer's ire. Ultimately, in the Senate-passed 
bill, they proposed repealing a so-called lobbying tax deduction as an 
offset and contended, with remarkably straight faces, that it somehow 
did not affect taxpayers, never mind that the revenue produced would 
come directly from the U.S. Treasury and be diverted away from other 
far more worthy causes such as deficit reduction or infrastructure or 
public health improvements.
  Further, the proponents of spending limits planned to stick everyone 
who buys postage with the bill for the revenue forgone from the reduced 
mail rate that complying candidates will receive. But this story of 
taxpayer financing of political campaigns cannot really be told without 
the story of how they intended the public to pay for broadcast time in 
these campaigns.
  A few years ago, the Democrat proponents of this new welfare system 
devised a mechanism to make sure that challengers could never get more 
broadcast time than incumbents. That is worth repeating. They devised a 
mechanism to make sure that challengers could never get more broadcast 
time than incumbents. They proposed communication vouchers for 
candidates instead of cash. These are the food stamps of politicians 
that have been talked about. The proponents of spending limits shifted 
a sizable chunk of the cost of this proposal to broadcasters by forcing 
them to sell advertising to complying candidates at half price. Many 
broadcasters would have to eat the loss, and some small broadcasters 
would not be able to, and they would go bankrupt.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator has been one of the great--actually, he is 
the originator of the whole unfunded mandates matter. I was listening 
carefully to the Senator's comments about what is required of the 
broadcasters. It strikes me as an unfunded mandate, very similar to 
things that the Senator from Idaho has been leading us to think more 
and more about, an unfunded mandate against the broadcast industry. Is 
the Senator from Kentucky correct in assuming the similarity is quite 
obvious?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky is 
absolutely on target with his analysis. Unfunded Federal mandates. 
Hopefully this session, this Congress is going to finally come to terms 
with unfunded Federal mandates where Congress operates in a vacuum and 
determines that it wants to have something done and dictates that those 
things will be done but without any accountability as to Congress 
paying for them.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield further?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is the Senator from Kentucky correct that the bill of 
the Senator from Idaho on unfunded mandates has substantial Democratic 
support including the Democratic mayors from all across America?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I am very proud to say that the bill 
to stop unfunded Federal mandates has 63 Senate cosponsors, strong 
bipartisan support, including national associations such as the 
Governors, the mayors, county commissioners, the school boards, that 
are all bipartisan.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Then the Senator from Kentucky is also correct, I 
assume, that many folks who think we ought to relieve unfunded mandates 
on State and local governments believe we ought to lay these unfunded 
mandates on the broadcast industry?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky has raised a 
very valid point. It is the same principle. It is the same principle. 
We believe that we are within striking distance in doing something 
about this, and yet we are now dealing with another law that a number 
of our colleagues in this body are advocating become law which have 
unfunded Federal mandates. This time they are going to just single out 
and target the broadcasters of America.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is there anything in the bill that would exempt the 
broadcaster from losing money from this unfunded mandate of the Federal 
Government to provide deeply discounted time to political candidates?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Well, as I say to my good friend from Kentucky, it 
would be passed on so that the commercial users of broadcasting that 
would go and pay the fees would have to pay more to help offset the 
cost that the broadcasters would lose. That is assuming that the small 
broadcasters can hang on. It may lead to their bankruptcy. But 
ultimately the consumer has to pay.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It also assumes, does it not, I say to my friend from 
Idaho, that the consumer has nowhere to go? If it is a broadcaster who 
is in a lot of trouble and he does accommodate the market, who knows 
where that consumer goes? But in short, clearly it seems to me in 
listening to the Senator from Idaho that the exact sort of thing that 
he is fighting here to help State and local governments seems to me to 
apply to the broadcasting industry. Supporters of this do not want to 
pay for it directly. They want to pay for it indirectly. In other 
words, they want to have somebody else pay for it, stick the consumer 
with the tab.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Well, again, I say to my friend from Kentucky, the 
principle is the same. It is the same. We should not be doing that. We 
should not have unfunded Federal mandates. We should not operate in 
this vacuum. By what right do we point to some industry, and in this 
case the broadcasters, and determine that they will now in essence 
subsidize political candidates, incumbent candidates? The people that 
have been elected, the incumbents of Congress, turning to that industry 
and saying you will now subsidize our campaigns. Boy, if that is not 
Government overreaching its bounds, if that is not something that 
questions the basic premises upon which this Nation has been founded.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield further?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would be happy to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. On this very same point, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. 
Coverdell, was here this afternoon, and he raised an interesting point 
I had not thought about, which was that the broadcasters have been sort 
of singled out for punishment here. There is nothing in the bill that 
the bumper strip company discount their product or the direct mail 
people discount their product. What about the telephone banks, quite 
expensive in a modern political campaign? Nothing to make them discount 
their product. So we are just going to decide up here--as Senator 
Coverdell put it, some wonk decided in Washington to single out the 
broadcast industry to pay the freight and these other favored 
industries--the Government picking out the winners and the losers 
here--these other favored industries will not have to pay the freight.
  Mainly, I wanted to take this opportunity to just thank the Senator 
from Idaho for his outstanding leadership on the unfunded mandate 
issue. And clearly under this bill we are at it again.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. We are at it again, I say to the Senator from 
Kentucky. Think of this awesome power of Congress to single out an 
industry and to decree that you will now sell us your services at 50 
percent discount. And where does it stop? How long will the American 
public abide by that? They see through that. They know it is wrong. The 
broadcasters, they have been diligent in pointing this out, to their 
credit. But that is why this whole thing is flawed. This is a bill that 
has been designed for the incumbents to keep the incumbents in power. 
And that is why, I say to my friend from Kentucky, we are seeing in 
election after election in this cycle that incumbents are getting a 
rough ride by the public because the public has had enough of this.
  These proposed communication vouchers that we talk about, the concept 
itself, communication vouchers, meaning that they will then go to the 
Government and turn them in, you see why we call it food stamps? It is 
amazing. And forcing them to pay it at half price. The communication 
voucher system was cheaper than full funding would be, but still it 
came with an astounding price tag, and that was literally billions of 
dollars would have to be paid for this scheme that was being designed.

  So the communication vouchers were ratcheted down in succeeding 
proposals to 20 percent of the general election limit. Still, we are 
talking hundreds of millions of dollars per election, and a problem for 
spending limit aficionados, the smaller the vouchers the smaller the 
incentive for candidates to then comply and agree to the spending 
limits. So we were shrinking the incentives. So clearly they had to do 
something; they had to reverse this.
  Spending limit proponents figured they could put in the bill a 50-
percent broadcast discount and a mail discount, which the Congressional 
Budget Office would not count as direct cost to the Treasury. Add in 
some additional taxpayer-funded penalties--the excessive spending and 
independent expenditure counterbalancing provisions--which only kick in 
when the spending limit was breached, and suddenly the incentive was 
being bolstered so that candidates would have no choice but to agree to 
the spending limits.
  Sure enough, the CBO cost projections were not as appalling as they 
had been earlier. While taxpayers still would bear the brunt, much of 
the cost of the congressional spending limit system had been shifted to 
broadcasters and postal users who would make up the cost of the revenue 
foregone due to the new congressional campaign mail discount.
  But then something very interesting happened. Conservatives, both 
Republican and Democrats, determined that this was not going to fly, 
and so as has been pointed out by other speakers--but it is absolutely 
worth repeating--it was determined that there is another way to do 
this, another way to accomplish the goal without this mechanism that we 
just outlined. In their place was a new tax, the ultimate penalty for 
choosing to exercise the freedom of speech: a tax on speech. Incredible 
as it sounds, but a tax on speech.
  Mr. President, last summer, just about every kind of tax that one 
could imagine had been floated in this body: a Btu tax, a gas tax, a 
value-added tax, a national sales tax, a Social Security benefits tax, 
a payroll tax, higher inheritance tax, higher corporate tax, and even a 
health benefits tax--tax, tax, tax, tax. At no point in our Nation's 
history had we seen the level of zeal and creativity which has been 
dedicated to the quest of taxing anything that breathes.
  And then the Senate put forth the ultimate tax: quite literally 
taxing the sound that came out of a campaign if it resulted in spending 
over a campaign spending limit. Under the speech tax, a campaign would 
have two choices: be bound by a voluntary spending limit or, two, be 
taxed at the corporate rate of 35 percent.
  With the advent of that tax, any semblance of voluntarism or 
constitutionality disappeared. Can you imagine, think of our Founding 
Fathers and one of the themes that they had: no taxation without 
representation; freedom of speech. What would our Founding Fathers say 
today if they heard that we were now considering taxing speech? I 
cannot even believe that that is the proposal that we are discussing.
  They also added in a free speech penalty provision. There is another 
kicker. If a candidate exceeds the spending limit by even $1, or if a 
group of citizens decides to interject its views independently during 
an election, the complying candidate, the candidate that complies with 
these spending limits, would be eligible to receive an unlimited 
infusion of taxpayer dollars. So if you exceed it by $1, your opponent 
gets an unlimited infusion of taxpayer dollars.
  Let me take a minute to explain--as if it needed explaining--why it 
is unconstitutional to impose a discriminatory tax on free speech.
  The Senator from Washington discussed the Supreme Court case of 
Buckley versus Valeo where they repeatedly held that campaign spending 
is indistinguishable from campaign speech, and, therefore, it is 
unconstitutional to limit campaign spending.
  You see, if you pull the plug on a microphone, then you have pulled 
the plug on the speech for everyone who is not in the front row, and so 
you have limited free speech. Nevertheless, the Court held in the 
Buckley case that candidates could be enticed to limit their speech. 
You cannot prevent it, but you can offer an incentive for them to limit 
their speech.
  The crucial point was that such speech limits had to be purely 
voluntary. There could be incentives but no coercion. That is how the 
Presidential system works, where the public subsidy is so generous that 
only extremely wealthy candidates can afford to turn down the money.
  Applying the standards articulated in the Buckley decision, the 
Senate- and House-passed bills are clearly unconstitutional. It sets up 
layers upon layers of punishment for any speech which it deems to be 
excessive, in direct conflict with the ruling and opinion in that case. 
If it is unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has said, to impose 
spending limits on candidates by law, then it is also unconstitutional 
to impose spending limits on candidates by discriminatory tax.
  If, on the other hand, this body were to conclude that there is 
nothing improper about a discriminatory tax on speech, we may also want 
to consider the other speech taxes which might help to suppress 
unpleasant speech while raising revenues for deficit reduction. These 
other taxes could be aimed at pornography, television violence, 
independent expenditures and apply the revenues from these taxes to 
deficit reduction.
  But who is going to determine where we draw the line once we begin 
this tax on the freedom of speech? This speech tax sets a new 
constitutional standard. If we do not like some form of speech, if it 
is inconvenient, we will not ban it, we will just tax it, and we will 
determine the rate of that tax. And guess who will do that? The 
incumbent Members of Congress, the very ones that are to be assisted 
most by this little program.
  The Senate bill's discriminatory tax on speech is not merely indirect 
constraint on speech, it is a direct attack on the first amendment 
rights of candidates as articulated by the Supreme Court. Thus, the 
speech tax, passed by the Senate, taxes candidates into submission. We 
cannot afford to entice them, so we will use the Tax Code to pummel. 
What candidate would dare not comply with this bill when the gross 
receipts are going to be taxed at the full corporate rate?
  On top of it all, as if all of the foregoing were not enough, not 
only do they seek to heap this indignity on us, but any politician who 
does not feel that he or she should take the taxpayer money for a 
campaign is labeled by this bill, which the minority report correctly 
classified as a scarlet letter, a statement that the candidate has not 
agreed to voluntary spending limits. That is how that candidate will be 
labeled. Instead, let me suggest that any candidate who takes this 
money should be required to state: ``This candidate has chosen to be 
funded by the taxpayers and not by independent supporters.''
  Yet, with all of this designed as it is to promote a one-party system 
in America, the incumbent party, is there any doubt what would be left 
out in conference? Will my amendment requiring an audit of all 
campaigns receiving taxpayer funds, rather than just the 10 percent 
under the original bill, be retained? I think that is a very important 
point. The original bill said that they would only audit 10 percent of 
the campaigns that took the taxpayers' money. Now who is going to 
figure out which 10 percent are to be audited? That is amazing. I have 
an idea of how incumbents might determine who is audited.
  My belief is, though, that if anybody is going to use the taxpayers' 
money, every one of us should be audited. Well, that was not passed in 
this body. While the Nation goes wanting with every dollar of critical 
revenue needed for the deficit, the Congress intends to take taxpayer 
money and hand it over to politicians at every election. But even with 
the micromanagement of campaigns that S. 3 proposed originally, it did 
not protect the taxpayer money that is so easily handed out.
  It seems to me that if this body believes any Senator who receives 
more than $25 from a lobbyist will be corrupted, what makes him believe 
candidates will not take those odds that if only 10 percent of them are 
audited, do not worry about it? Do not worry about it. Do not worry 
about the taxpayers' money. The taxpayers already do not believe we 
have been careful with public trust. They do not believe we exercise 
enough control over their money.
  Well, they are right. We have dismissed their objections to public 
financing, that public financing was a waste of money. We owe it to the 
people to ensure that their money is spent in accordance with the bill 
and all of the Federal election laws.
  My amendment to S. 3 requiring audit of any candidate who took public 
campaign assistance was passed unanimously. But I do not believe that 
even that commonsense, practical approach to campaign finance would be 
retained in conference. In the words of a good friend, the Senator from 
South Carolina, who said, ``You can't legislate common sense,'' to 
paraphrase, I guess, common sense has very little chance to survive the 
conference. It would be removed. I am sure that in the remaining days 
of this Congress, the majority party will, as it shuffles off to 
difficult days ahead with the American people, bring back a campaign 
finance bill conference report so one-sided that any chance for real 
reform will be lost. No, S. 3 is a politically one-sided bill in 
classic Democrat style. We are forcing a system on the people that they 
do not need, a system that will not work, and a system that denies 
them, the public, their participation. And on top of it all, it forces 
them to pay for it. The Republican alternative was a good commonsense 
approach to campaign finance reform. It was real reform without any of 
the funding, without any of the coercion.
  S. 7, the Republican proposal, banned PAC contributions, eliminated 
all taxpayer-financed mass mailings, reduced out-of-State contributions 
by 50 percent and, best of all, there were no taxpayer funds used to 
fund the system.
  Senate bill 7 allowed political parties to furnish seed money to 
political challengers rather than having the taxpayers provide funds.
  These are simple and elegant reforms which go a long way to reforming 
the process without creating yet a new way to put politicians in the 
public's wallet before they are even elected.
  Senate bill 3 is the incumbent Democrat election act. It is a bad 
idea for Congress and a bad idea for the American public.
  Mr. President, our friend from Oklahoma had pointed out that this 
campaign reform effort has been 11 years in the making and yet it is 
one-sided. I will reiterate that there is bipartisan support for true 
campaign reform, bipartisan. A majority, I believe, if we could do what 
was right instead of what was politically motivated.
  So I would like to just say I commend the Senator from Kentucky for 
his leadership on this whole effort and would encourage him to keep up 
his efforts because he is doing the right thing and, on behalf of the 
American taxpayer, let me thank the Senator from Kentucky.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma, is here but 
before the Senator from Idaho leaves the floor, I thank him for his 
wonderful speech, and again thank him for the work he is doing in the 
area of unfunded mandates and the interesting parallel he drew between 
the unfunded mandate legislation he is pushing, which would provide 
relief for State and local government supported by many people on the 
other side of the aisle. There are 63 cosponsors he has, who have no 
compunction whatsoever about socking the broadcast industry with 
massive discounts to subsidize campaigns.
  So I think the parallel was very apt. I thank the Senator from Idaho 
for his statement and his leadership on this issue as well. And I sure 
hope he will have a good night's sleep.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank, too, my friend from Kentucky. I appreciate 
it.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I had the pleasure of listening to a great deal of the 
speech of the Senator from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne. I tell you it is 
a breath of fresh air. I compliment the Senator from Idaho for his 
leadership. He has been an outstanding Member of the Senate, a new 
Member of the Senate from State of Idaho. He was mayor of Boise, ID. 
But he is just a refreshing breath of fresh air, in my opinion, for the 
Senate and his work on trying to combat unfunded mandates. We hear so 
many people, as a matter of fact a majority of the Senate--I believe 
the Senator from Idaho said 63 cosponsors on his bill. That is a little 
over half, if my math is accurate. And it would make me think we should 
pass that bill.
  Yet we see the bill before us having an enormous unfunded mandate. We 
are going to tell the broadcasters they have to offer politicians one-
half the rate of anybody else. The Senator from Kentucky has been 
active and he is married to Elaine Chao who is head of the United Way 
of America, an enormous charity that does great work, raises hundreds 
of millions of dollars. Yet politicians are going to get to use 
broadcast time at one-half the rate of that charity, of any charity, 
under this bill. I cannot believe it. We are going to mandate the 
broadcasters to do it. They do not have an option.
  I compliment the Senator from Idaho for his speech, for his 
integrity, for the outstanding job he is doing in the Senate. I 
compliment him. He has talked to me and talked to the majority of 
Members in this body. I hope he is going to pass the unfunded mandates 
bill this year. I concur. That is what we should be debating. If we are 
going to be debating something at midnight I think that would be 
something worth debating. It would be worth fighting for. The piece of 
legislation we have before us tonight is worth killing, it is not worth 
passing. It is worth fighting, and we will stand here all night if 
necessary to make sure it does not pass. It is not worth the time to 
pass.
  I will just make a couple of comments because my good friend, Senator 
Boren, is the principal sponsor of this. We are good friends. I 
compliment him for his tenacity, for his persistence in trying to pass 
this piece of legislation.
  Actually I go back in history for several years. His initial piece of 
legislation was not that bad. His initial piece of legislation, if I 
remember, did not have public financing. I may be incorrect. The 
Senator from Kentucky----
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will yield, I believe the original 
Boren legislation had to do with reducing the influence of political 
action committees.
  Mr. NICKLES. I think the Senator is correct. If I remember it did not 
have anything in it like vouchers. I know vouchers were taken out and 
we have massive subsidies in this bill. If people want to know why this 
Senator and most Republicans are opposed to S. 3, it is because we do 
not want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars subsidizing political 
campaigns, plain and simple. And our constituents do not want us to, 
either. So we are willing to spend a little time.
  I want to touch just for a moment on the procedural situation because 
I have heard some people say this is just terrible. This shows the 
Senate does not work, the Senate cannot pass legislation and this is 
just an outrage.
  Let us look at the procedural situation. I compliment the Senator 
from Kentucky because he has shown a great deal of courage. He said he 
is going to stand on the principle that we should not subsidize 
campaigns and he has been very outspoken on that. I happen to agree 
with him and I am going to stand with him. In the Senate we do have 
ways of trying to kill bills, particularly late in the session.
  I might mention we are talking about appointing conferees. Some 
people say surely we can appoint conferees. Mr. President, we have 2 
weeks left in this session, for all practical purposes, 2 weeks and 
maybe 2 days. I am on the Appropriations Committee. We have eight 
appropriations bills we have not passed. We have to pass those by the 
end of next week.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. We have no choice. We have to pass those bills by the 
end of next week or else we are going to have a continuing resolution 
which basically is admitting we have not done our job.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield to the Senator from 
Massachusetts?
  Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KERRY. Is the Senator suggesting we should not be allowed to go 
to conference and see if we cannot at least use those 2 weeks 
intelligently?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to respond. Mr. President, we have had 
these bills and been working on these bills for a long time. This is 
the most absurd thing I can remember. I have been in the Senate for 14 
years. The Senate bill was passed 15 months ago. The House bill was 
passed 10 months ago. And they are just now asking to appoint 
conferees.
  Usually when you pass a bill in both Houses you ask for appointing 
conferees and you work out the differences. Basically, you work them 
out, and you try to do that shortly after the bill is passed because 
everybody is fresh on the issue. It has been 15 months.
  I was kind of amazed, pulling out some of the old campaign finance 
stuff, because I spoke out at length against this bill in the first 
place because I thought it was a bad bill. But I cannot recall any time 
that we have passed a bill and waited 15 months to appoint conferees. 
Then the House, 10 months. So the conferees should have been appointed 
10 months ago. Yet we waited that long. Why? Why in the world did it 
take so long for the majority party to announce they wanted to appoint 
conferees? They, the Democrats, control both the House and the Senate. 
They both passed bills they like that were supported overwhelmingly by 
the Democrats in the Senate and in the House, opposed overwhelmingly by 
the Republicans in both the House and the Senate. Why did it take so 
long to appoint conferees? Because a few people were negotiating the 
bill and they could not come to terms.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator is right on the mark. There was a 
conference going on all right, for 10 months. The majority has been 
conferring on this, sometimes with great passion and disagreement, for 
10 months--gridlock.
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is exactly right. It has been kind of fun, 
in a way, to watch the majority negotiate behind closed doors, not in a 
formal conference, but this way they could do it without any 
Republicans present and they could do it on little issues like whether 
or not we should ban PAC's, because a lot of people think this bill is 
about banning PAC's.
  Mr. President, that is not the case. Republicans will vote for 
banning PAC's. We have already done it. Republicans voted to limiting 
PAC's to $1,000, same amount as individuals. That is my position. I do 
not know you can really ban PAC's constitutionally. If people want to 
get together and do it jointly, I do not think anything is wrong with 
that. But if we want to put that amount to the same as individuals, I 
think that is great. I support that and I will tell you overwhelming 
numbers of Republicans would support it, my guess is, in the Senate, 
because we have passed it in the Senate. So we can pass that.
  So if people want to say this is about reducing the influence of 
PAC's, that bill can pass. But if you want to add public subsidies, if 
you want massive subsidies in the numbers of millions of dollars, that 
bill will not pass. For the majority leader to pull this bill up when 
we have 2 weeks and 2 days left and say this is the most important 
thing on our agenda, this is what we need to pass, that is ridiculous. 
That is laughable. It is almost kind of funny, except for some of us 
who know we still have legislation that we have to enact. We need to 
pass those appropriations bills. We have by the end of this month, 
September, by the end of September we have to pass the appropriations 
bills. We have passed a few. We still have eight. We have not passed 
the Department of Defense bill. I know the conference is still going 
on. We have not passed the Interior bill. We just finally passed the 
conference report today.
  And on and on--several important appropriations conference reports 
have yet to be enacted and they have to go to the President's desk. He 
may or may not veto them, and if he vetoes them we still have some work 
to do. So I think we should be doing work that needs to be done, like 
appropriations bills, to meet our schedule. But I am almost amused that 
here are these bills that have been eligible to have the conferees 
appointed for the last 10 months and they do it 2 weeks before we go 
out.
  And then with this urgent sense, the sense of urgency, we have to get 
this done now. Then I look at what is in the bill and I am thinking, 
wait a minute, what is so urgent about this bill? It reminds me a lot 
of the health bill. If you ask people, ``Are you for campaign reform?'' 
They say, ``Sure.'' ``Are you for health care reform?'' You say, 
``Sure.'' But wait a minute, we are going to find out something about 
the health care bill. When they find out the health care bill will 
outlaw the health care plan they now have and replace it with a 
Government-designed benefit package that may cost $6,000 per family, 
they say, ``Wait a minute, I am not quite so sure. I do not think I 
like that bill.''
  When they say, ``Are you for campaign reform?'' ``Oh, yes, it costs 
too much for those campaigns, let us sock it to those politicians.''
  Then, ``Do you want taxpayers to pay for those political campaigns?'' 
They say, ``Heck, no.'' Heck or something else. Maybe something else a 
lot stronger. They do not want their taxpayers' dollars used to 
subsidize congressional campaigns, Congressmen and Senators. They are 
outraged at that idea.
  The Senator from Kentucky coined the term ``food stamps for 
politicians.'' It maybe is worse than that, because in food stamps we 
have limits. There is almost no limit on how much this will cost. And 
that bothers me. Some of us happen to be really kind of concerned about 
how much money we are spending and the subsidies in this bill are 
almost laughable except it would be true if it became law. It is almost 
a joke except it could become law. And what a sad irony that would be.
  I will just touch on a couple of these things. It has been some time 
since we looked at it. But when people find out how much the subsidies 
are, they are just shocked.
  I could use my State of Oklahoma, I could use the State of Kentucky, 
maybe use the State of Florida. It might be kind of interesting to look 
at some of the figures, the amount of subsidies, because I think when 
people find out they are eligible for subsidies of that amount, they 
kind of cringe. And sometimes they say, ``Wait a minute, I did not know 
that was in the bill.'' I will just give an example.
  In the State of Florida there is about $3.4 million. That is a 
general election limit. That sounds kind of nice. And they say OK. 
Under the Exon-Danforth amendment we took out the voter communication 
vouchers. That was $1.4 million in subsidies that was in S. 3 as 
reported by the Democrats. It was taken out on the floor. So they say, 
``We took that out. We took the subsidies out.''
  Let me just give an example. If you had two people running in 
Florida, one complies and the other does not comply--I heard it is 
voluntary and we like that word voluntary. So if it is voluntary one 
complies and the other side is not to comply, if the one that does not 
comply spends more than the general election limit, then, whoa, if they 
spend more than $3.4 million--it sounds like a lot of money but I guess 
in Florida races Governors and Senators spend more than that nowadays, 
would be my guess--wow, if people spend over that, I see that if 
somebody spent, say twice that amount and says, ``No I am not going to 
comply, I am not going to take any taxpayer money, I do not want to 
participate,'' if they do not participate their opponent could be 
eligible for $3.4 million in taxpayer money. Here is a check courtesy 
of Uncle Sam, $3.4 million. Wait a minute, I thought this was 
voluntary. But if you do not comply your opponent is going to get $3.4 
million? That is a pretty big subsidy. Oh, and then we find you do not 
comply so you have to pay the going rate, whatever it is in 
broadcasting just like anybody else in America.
  But wait a minute, I should take that back because political 
candidates already get the lowest rate that anybody else gets. But if 
you do not comply your opponent is going to get one-half of that rate. 
So your opponent--if the Presiding Officer decided not to comply and 
says, ``It is costing me about $5 or $6 million, I am not going to 
comply, I do not need to.''
  I do not want public money. I have stated in the past that I will not 
take public money as a matter of principle. So you go ahead and raise 
your $6 million or $7 million as usual. Your opponent gets $3.4 million 
of taxpayers money, and then he gets to go out and buy twice as much 
media as you can because he buys it at half the rate. So he gets $3.4 
million of which he is able to buy about $6.8 million of TV time. That 
is all you raised altogether. Then they get more subsidies in addition 
to that. They get the mail a lot cheaper than anybody else. They get 
mail cheaper than any charity in the country.
  Why in the world should politicians be able to mail cheaper than 
United Way or Salvation Army? Why give politicians such a special mail 
discount? Then you might have an independent expenditure. As a matter 
of fact, I would estimate if this bill passes you would have a lot of 
independent expenditures because you are going to limit what people can 
spend in a general election.
  I mentioned Florida. I will take another case in point. Maybe a 
smaller State like Idaho. The Senator from Idaho was speaking. In their 
general election they can spend about--this is 1998. No wonder the 
figure is so high. I have charts for each election year cycle. I will 
look at the year 1996, a little closer to home. And you take a State 
such as Arkansas. In the general election, the limit is about $1.2 
million; actually $1.273 million. So if an individual wanted to spend 
that amount of money, he or she could do so. They would get one-half of 
the discount rate from the broadcasters. So they would have that 
subsidy. But since they are limited to $1.273 million, they may have 
some friends who say, ``I want to do something for you. I will run an 
independent expenditure and try to help you a little bit.'' There is no 
limit on how much they can spend on that independent expenditure.
  So they do it. Uncle Sam is going to have to come in on the other 
side and match it dollar for dollar. There is no limit. This thing 
could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. You might say that is to 
discourage independent expenditures. But it might not stop there. So 
the taxpayers will be liable for the entire amount. Or somebody might 
do some Mickey Mouse independent expenditure on the other side to get 
matching funds.
  You could milk this system for all it is worth. You could have a 
friend say, ``Why don't you do an independent expenditure for my 
opponent? You could do a crummy job on it, and have one that would have 
no impact whatsoever, and then get taxpayers' funds of hundreds of 
thousands of dollars that you get to spend in any way you want to that 
might be effective.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will yield, how about the following 
independent expenditure? I would be interested in the reaction of my 
friend from Oklahoma to this. A group comes in and says, ``We think you 
ought to vote for Senator Don Nickles because he voted to raise your 
taxes 10 times to help public education.''
  Who should the tax dollars go to?
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is exactly right. My point is that is just 
open for abuse. It is an invitation for abuse. You could have a group 
say, ``I think you should vote for the Senator from X, Y, or Z State. 
This is a great Senator. He has voted for every tax increase in 
America. He has voted to give pay raises, and we think he should be 
reelected.'' Of course, that is going to hurt his reelection effort. 
Then the taxpayer is going to have to subsidize the other person's 
opponent. That is very possible under the legislation we are looking 
at. There is no limit to how much it could cost.
  Mr. McCONNELL. How about this one? Maybe we are just getting a little 
punchy here late at night. How about, ``Vote for Candidate Jones. He 
will stand up for the right of dead beat dads.''
  Mr. NICKLES. I do not doubt it. You mention people being creative. We 
both have seen a lot of creative ads. The Senator from Kentucky has had 
some creative ads at various times. But I am amazed at how open this 
particular procedure would be. I am amazed that the sponsors of this 
legislation can say that it is voluntary. Maybe to be a little bit 
serious, I do not think we should mislead the American people. And for 
anyone to say this bill has voluntary participation is misleading the 
American people.
  It reminds me of the health care bill that we had before us earlier 
this year; actually just last month. Senator Mitchell had actually 
three proposals, ``Mitchell I'', ``Mitchell II,'' ``Mitchell III.'' And 
I heard people say it does not have employer mandates in it, at least 
not initially. It is voluntary. So people can participate in it or not. 
We started reading the bill. We found there is a little section, if you 
do not offer the standard benefit package, an employer would be 
subjected to a fine of $10,000 per employee. That is not very 
voluntary. But yet the sponsors of the legislation says it is 
voluntary. That is just about the way this bill is.
  I will give you another example. I will use my State. I do not want 
to participate. I will tell you steadfastly that I have no interest 
whatsoever in participating in a public financing scheme to finance my 
campaign. I think that is wrong. I will oppose it energetically. But if 
this bill passed and I still decide I do not want to participate in my 
State of Oklahoma, the general election limit is $1.27 million. Our 
State is probably about average. I notice in the State of Kentucky it 
is a little more, $1.3 million. This is for 1996. This is adjusted for 
inflation.
  If I decide not to participate and my opponent does, I go ahead. My 
races have cost maybe up to $3 million. That is a lot of money. I do 
not make any bones about it. That is about what it has been. I notice 
the Governor had a race this last year. He spent about the same amount. 
I do not know how evil that is. Some people want to say that is very 
evil. I think it is less evil than having the taxpayers subsidize 
campaigns. But if I do not participate, my opponent, if I spend more 
than $1.2 million, is going to get $1.2 million of taxpayers' money. 
And he will be able to go down to the broadcasters and say, ``I want 
one-half the rate.'' If my opponent does not participate, he does not 
get that half rate. So they can take $1.2 million, turn it into $2.4 
million, a gift from Uncle Sam because Uncle Sam is going to say here 
is the $1.2 million. We are going to penalize somebody for not 
participating. Then they get a broadcast discount of 50 percent.
  That is how this bill works. That is not voluntary. That means if I 
make an election not to participate, my opponent will get $2.4 million 
courtesy of this bill, not to mention the subsidies for lower mail and 
so on-- massive subsidies, not to mention an open-ended subsidy for 
independent expenditures.
  There is just no limit on how much this will cost. There is no limit 
whatsoever. I do not think that is funny. I do not think that is 
serious, and I do not think it is voluntary. There is nothing voluntary 
about it whatsoever.
  So for the proponents to say this is voluntary, we have little 
incentives and little sticks for people. This is a gun at your head. 
They say if you do not participate, we will give your opponent millions 
of dollars of benefits.
  Then I wonder if everybody knew. I would just love this. Again you go 
back to the people. ``Do you favor campaign reform?'' They say, ``You 
bet.'' ``Do you favor subsidizing campaigns?'' If you ask them, ``Do 
you think it should be voluntary?'' they will say yes. You say, ``Do 
you think Uncle Sam should use its force, power to say if you do not 
participate your opponent will get millions of dollars?'' I think a lot 
of people would be saying, ``No way. No. We don't want to do that.''
  I am also concerned. I will just mention that I kind of see something 
happening here. I have a feeling maybe I am wrong. Maybe the majority 
leader and others think this really has to pass this year. I do not 
doubt the sincerity of my colleague, Senator Boren, because I know he 
would like for this thing to pass this year. But the way to wait all 
year long and then to bring this up with 2 weeks to go makes me think 
that they know that some of us are steadfast in our opposition and they 
know we are going to be steadfast in our opposition. They will say, 
``We will put it up and we will allow Senator McConnell and Senator 
Nickles and some of the other people who are really opposed to it to 
filibuster and after a day, 2, 3, 4, 5, whatever it takes, we are 
willing to stay as long as it takes.'' The majority leader will pull it 
down while the clock is running. ``We did not have time to pass this. I 
regret it. This is the case of the Republicans. They have been 
obstructionist. They are not cooperating. We will therefore pull the 
bill down. The Republicans must be succumbing to special interest 
groups, and therefore it is regrettable but we cannot pass it. 
Therefore, we need to run against those Republicans.''
  I see that happening. Maybe I am wrong. I kind of have that feeling 
that is coming. I do not want to guess the intentions of the President 
of the United States. We might hear that from him. But I have to think, 
wait a minute. What is in the bill? I have a feeling we will hear the 
same thing on health care. At some point mercifully somebody is going 
to decide to pull the plug on the health care bill. We should. We do 
not have time to pass a health care bill this year.
  My guess is somebody is going to come in and say, ``Well, we did not 
pass a health care bill because all those special interests and 
contributions they made to those Republicans,'' probably. The fact is 
the bill will not stand up to scrutiny. The bill with 1,443 pages. The 
more people found out about the bill the less they liked it. When they 
found out the bill would replace the plan they have they are happy 
with, and they cannot keep it, then they started getting a little 
concerned. It was not the fact that Harry and Louise was on TV that 
killed the health care bill. It is the fact that the more and more 
people learned about it they did not want the bill. When people found 
out that there was an item in the bill that said you cannot keep your 
own plan, even if you want it, even if it is a good plan, you cannot 
keep it, we are going to replace it with a government plan, people 
became quite upset.
  I announced I was going to have an amendment on the health care bill 
to allow people to keep their own plan. People started scurrying for 
cover. You are going to make us vote on that? President Clinton in a 
press conference on August 3 said you can keep your own plan. I held it 
up on a chart. That was in his quote, in his press conference, in his 
written statement in his press conference. He said you can keep your 
own plan. It turned out that was not true. That was not correct. It 
turned out that if you were self-insured, you could not keep your own 
plan. If you had less than 500 employees and you were self-insured, you 
could not keep your own plan.
  I have exposed that. I have made that floor speech two or three times 
trying to let people know. You are going to lose your plan if we pass 
the Clinton-Mitchell bill. You are going to lose your plan. You cannot 
keep it if you are self-insured.
  We found millions of people self-insured including the companies that 
I used to manage. Those plans are illegal. Yet President Clinton on 
August 3 said you can keep your own plan. When we exposed that was not 
correct, people started to say ``Wait a minute. I am not sure we want 
to pass this plan.'' That was not the result of somebody writing a 
correction to Don Nickles or Mitch McConnell or Bob Dole. In fact, that 
was in the bill.
  So again, the bill needed a little more scrutiny. Now some people are 
still saying maybe we can put together a health care bill in the last 
couple of weeks in Congress, kind of run it through, and we think we 
will have a consensus, and it is estimated the bill is going to be over 
1,000 pages. I do not think so. I do not think we can. I do not think 
we have the time. I do not think we should do that. I think we are 
risking doing serious harm and we should make a rule if we pass health 
care legislation that it would be good health care legislation, 
bipartisan health care legislation. I do not see that happening in the 
last 2 weeks of this Congress. I do not think so. I want to read the 
bill. I want to know what it is.
  If we are going to impact the health care of all of our citizens in 
every State in the Union, we should know what is in the package. I do 
not see that happening if we try to cram a so-called package-- I do not 
care if it is called mainstream, or what title is put on it, health 
care reform for all Americans or lower cost health care, you name it. I 
do not think we can do it in 2 weeks. Maybe that is regrettable. I know 
a lot of people have worked hard.
  I know Senator Mitchell would like to pass a health care bill before 
he leaves. I would like to give him a nice retirement gift. But I do 
not want to do something that will injure a quality health care system 
that we have today, nor do we want to pass legislation that would drive 
up the cost of health care premiums for countless Americans.
  I noticed in looking at the health care plan that Senator Mitchell--
and just in looking at my own familiar circumstance, my daughter who is 
22 years old purchased insurance through her college. She is getting a 
master's degree at the University of Oklahoma. She purchased health 
insurance for about $500 per year. Under Senator Mitchell's bill the 
cost, because of the community rating he has--most people do not 
understand--that cost takes out the age differential and would cost 
over $2,000. Actually $2,200 was the estimate that CBO used. The health 
care plan that our employees have costs about $2,400 per year. I say 
``our employees.'' I am talking about Nickles Machine Corp.
  Yet, the health care plan that Senator Mitchell introduced and 
Senator Kennedy introduced is estimated to cost about $6,000 per 
family. Wait a minute. Where is that money coming from?
  So my point being that health care bill is not caused by special 
interest contributions killing the bill. What killed the health care 
bill was people found out what was in it. Then the more they found out 
the less they liked the bill.
  When you started talking about cost, when you started talking about 
choices, when you started talking about can you keep your own plan, if 
you have a cafeteria plan that has health care, you cannot keep it; 
self-insured plan, you cannot keep it. When people found out these 
kinds of facts they started saying, ``We don't want the health care 
bill to pass. It should not pass. This is going to take health care 
away from me or it is going to make me pay twice as much as we are 
paying today.''
  That is the reason why the health care bill is not passing. And 
really for the same reason this campaign bill will not pass. Maybe it 
will not pass because there are some of us who are pretty strident in 
our opposition. But if the American people find out what is in this 
bill, they will not want it to pass. They do not want millions of 
dollars of subsidies for individual Senators. If they find out that 
Senators are able to get broadcast time--and I am talking about 
broadcast time. Most people think that is NBC and ABC. Well, you are 
talking about TV stations. You are also talking about radio stations. I 
know originally, when it was introduced, it applied to radio stations. 
I know some people were talking about exempting radio stations because 
of some of the heat that was generated.
  We are talking about giving discounts for politicians, but we are 
really talking about politicians as being Congressmen and Senators. 
What about county commissioners? If the broadcasters have to give 
discounts at one-half the rate they give anybody else to Congressmen 
and Senators, what are they going to do for county commissioners?
  My guess is if they have to give it to congressmen and Senators, who 
can afford probably more expensive campaigns, they are going to have to 
give it to a State senator; they are going to give it to a county 
official; they are going to have to give to a city councilman. They are 
going to have to give to anybody and everybody. They are going to have 
to be fair.
  As a matter of fact, if they are going to give it to them, what about 
the charity that says, well, we are having our annual fundraiser to 
raise money for homeless children? No, sorry, we have to charge you 
twice as much as we charge politicians.
  Be real. Yet that is what is in this bill. What about mailing? Why in 
the world should--when most people mail, they pay 29 cents. This allows 
politicians to mail at less than third class. So everybody else in the 
country is mailing at 29 cents. This bill says we are going to give a 
big discount even off third class mailing, a big discount. And guess 
what? Congress is supposed to appropriate money to take care of that 
subsidy. We are supposed to appropriate it to the Post Office.
  Guess what if we do not? All the other ratepayers, all the other 
postal payers have to make up that subsidy. So their postal rates will 
go to help subsidize us so we get to mail at cheaper rates.
  Thank you all very much to all the people who are mailing throughout 
the country because your postal rates are going up to help subsidize 
campaigns and probably help people get a lot of mail they may not even 
want. Not everybody wants all the campaign mail they might receive.
  So the subsidies are massive, Mr. President. This bill is not 
voluntary. It may be well-intentioned. It started out I think in all 
honesty with the greatest and highest goals and expectations by my 
colleague and others. But that is not the bill that we have before us.
  And then some people would say, kind of like let my people go. Well, 
let us let this go to conference and then let us just see if we can 
make a positive difference. How does it go to conference and get 
better? The Senate, because of concern about subsidies, did strike out 
the vouchers. That is in the House bill. So that is a conference item. 
And we happen to know that the sponsor of the legislation, the Democrat 
group that came up with this legislation wanted vouchers in it. It is 
in the House bill. They want it in the House bill. So we are going to 
be having vouchers, which is food stamps for politicians. We are going 
to give you so much money for participating. Both sides have big 
discounts, one-half of the rate to broadcasters, or I mean politicians 
pay one-half the rate to broadcasters. So that is not really an item in 
disagreement. It will be in the final package.
  So you have massive subsidies. That is a massive subsidy the Senator 
from Idaho mentioned. Wow. Broadcasters, you have to offer one-half the 
rate to politicians. That is going to be in the final bill.
  Both bills have lower mail rates for participating politicians. So 
that is a lot cheaper for us. So there is no question this bill is 
going to be, for most of us who do not want public financing the bill 
that comes out of conference is going to be a bad bill. So 
strategically we are saying let us oppose it now. Why waste the time? 
Why waste the time to go through this effort and have a bad bill? And 
people say, well, it is a conference report. You cannot even amend that 
now. Why not kill it now. Why not have the majority leader listen to us 
when we say we are not going to let this pass; it is a bad bill. It is 
laden with subsidies. So let us move to something else. Let us pass the 
appropriations bills. Let us do the business we have to do and go home.
  Instead, we are here 12:35 at night debating a bill the taxpayers do 
not want, that our country can ill-afford, that would be starting a 
brand-new entitlement program. Mr. President, I do not think that makes 
any sense.
  Mr. President, what can we do? If the authors of this legislation 
want to come up and say let us work with the Democrats and Republicans 
in a bipartisan fashion, I think a lot of us would be willing to 
listen, say what can we agree upon. If you want to limit PAC's to 
$1,000 per person, it would pass in a minute. If you want to do that, 
we can do it. But if you want to have a tax on free speech, which is in 
this legislation, it is not going to happen.
  Right now we say, well, if you spend more than the so-called general 
election limit, in the general election, there is going to be a tax 
equal to the corporate rate on that excessive amount, a 34-percent tax 
or something like that. That is not constitutional but it is also not 
right. You are telling people if they want to participate in a 
Senator's campaign, they want to write a check for $100, you are going 
to say, no, we are going to a take a third of that, a fourth of it or 
something. That is not right and that is not going to happen.
  That is a serious mistake. If you want to say let us limit PAC's; can 
we agree on this in a bipartisan fashion? Yes.
  Why did the conferees not get together? Why did they decide not to 
meet 10 months ago? Because the Democrats in both the House and Senate 
could not concur on whether or not we should restrict PAC's. Reports in 
the press for the last several months say, well, the House wants no 
restriction. The Senate wants some restriction. The reason why the 
Senate Democrats want restriction is because the House, or the Senate 
Republicans insisted upon it. So they agreed to our position to strike 
PAC's, or reduce them down to $1,000, the same amount that we have for 
individuals. That is not in the House bill.
  So right now you have two different bills. The House says, oh, we 
want more PAC money. We want to have $5,000; we can continue receiving 
money. I think you could probably pass something that said, well, 
people have to raise the majority of their money at least in their home 
State or district or maybe raise three-fourths of their money in their 
home State or district. I think that would be a good-government 
amendment. I certainly would support it. Some people might contest it. 
Some people think that is wrong. I know we have in particular some 
House Members, maybe some Senators--I have not looked at the figure 
lately--maybe raise the majority of their money in Washington, DC, and 
do not go home to their States. We can change that. We can say you have 
to raise the major amounts of money in your home State or district, or 
75 percent or whatever that figure would be. That would be fine.
  I think we could pass legitimate reform. But I do not think that the 
solution is massive public funding of campaigns.
  We could pass legislation that would restrict bundling. We could pass 
legislation that would regulate party soft money, or restrict special 
interest soft money. We could restrict the so-called millionaire's 
loophole. Right now a millionaire can put in any amount they want and 
somebody else cannot. You could say, well, if you have a millionaire 
who is going to put in a million dollars in their campaign and 
everybody else is limited to $1,000, you can say, well, if you have 
that, we will take the limit off. If you have somebody going to spend 
above a certain amount, well, we will let other people spend more to 
maybe equalize it. That is a possibility.
  You can do the same thing for independent expenditures. If there is 
an independent expenditure and somebody is coming in and going to spend 
several hundred dollars to defeat the Senator from Florida, you can 
say, well, if somebody does that, well, they have to report it. And 
when they do report it, we can take the individual limits off or raise 
the individual limits so a person could raise at least a like amount. 
And you do not have to get the taxpayers involved. You do not have to 
have to write a check as now in S. 3.
  Right now, in S. 3, if you have an independent expenditure a taxpayer 
is going to come in and match the difference. That does not make any 
sense. So it leaves taxpayers basically giving a credit card and saying 
charge it, use it, abuse it. The Senator from Kentucky used a little 
bit of humor, but it showed how easy it would be to abuse.
  And I did not even mention third-party candidates who would also be 
eligible to receive massive subsidies, and would they not, though. They 
would have a lot of people lining up for subsidies, and they would be 
joining the fray. Maybe some people think that is good, but they would 
not be running for office; they would be running for dollars. They 
would not be running to win an office. They would be running to get 
Federal dollars to make their point. We have that happening right now 
on the Presidential side, where we have a lot of candidates who are 
jumping in not because they have any chance whatsoever to get involved 
and win a race but they have a message that they want to send and they 
appreciate the taxpayers helping to pay for it.
  To give you an example, in the Presidential, Lyndon LaRouche has 
collected 2 million in tax dollars as a Presidential candidate in 
elections since 1976. He was recently paroled, and the FEC has 
certified $568,435 in matching funds for the 1992 campaign. Mr. 
LaRouche ran from prison, yet he was still certified for $568,000.
  Mrs. Fulani of the New Alliance Party has received over $3.5 million 
in matching funds as a candidate in the last three Presidential 
campaigns. In 1992, Ms. Fulani received $2 million in matching funds 
and was the first candidate to qualify that cycle. In 1992, John 
Hagland of the Natural Law Party received $353,000, and Larry Agron 
received $269,000--people who are running not for President. They are 
running for campaign dollars so they can send a signal, so they can get 
their message out, and they want to do it at taxpayers' expense.
  Mr. President, if we pass this bill, you are going to have more 
candidates running for office, and they are going to be able to because 
they want to send a message, they want to send a signal, they want 
taxpayer funding of campaigns.
  Mr. President, we can pass legislation to restrict gerrymandering. We 
can pass legislation that would restrict the abuse of franked mail 
during election cycles. We can pass some good legislation. But we need 
to do it in a bipartisan fashion.
  I might mention this last 15 months when conferees could have been 
appointed, frankly, should have been appointed and would have been 
appointed in any normal cycle, they were not appointed because the 
Democrats who are primary negotiators on this issue wanted to negotiate 
a deal. And I might mention no Republicans, not one, that I know of--I 
believe no Republicans were involved in any way in those negotiations. 
So this has been an effort to craft a partisan package.
  I know some of my colleagues say, ``Oh, I don't want a partisan 
package.'' That is what we have. That is the reason why Republicans are 
objecting to it. We are objecting to it because of the substance, 
because the result is massive taxpayer subsidies and we philosophically 
are opposed to that.
  Drop all public financing provisions of this bill, drop the tax on 
free speech, and then let us work on something we can pass. I think 
that would make sense. Let us do something worthwhile. But right now, 
if you look at S. 3 and you look at the House bill, there is no way, 
there is nothing common, there is nothing good that would come out of 
those bills.
  It kind of reminds me of the health care bill. Somebody said, well, 
let us amend it. Let us fix it. Senator Mitchell's bill was 1,443 
pages.
  Mr. President I did not have one lobbyist--this is interesting 
because it keeps going back. I just had this sense that when the health 
care bill was going to be declared finally dead, they were going to 
say, well, the special interest groups killed it. I do not know one 
lobbyist who came to me and said, ``Hey, I wish you would offer this 
amendment.'' It was my amendment that said I wish to protect 
everybody's right to keep their own health care plan. Some people said 
that if that amendment passed, it would have killed the bill. It may 
have because it would have killed this defined benefit which is kind of 
the core of some of these pages.
  That did not come from any lobbyist. That came from me. No lobbyist 
told me to offer the amendment to kill the $10,000 fine if you did not 
have the Government standard benefit package. We found it when we read 
the bill, and we said what is that doing in there? No lobbyist brought 
that to my attention. No lobbyist brought to our attention that 
somebody in Senator Mitchell's bill did not even have to pay premiums 
and they could not be canceled. We found that in the package. That was 
not brought to anybody's attention I know of from a lobbyist. We found 
it.
  Other Senators reading the bill--several of us divided up the bill 
and started reading it, and the more we read it the more we disliked it 
and the more we found out it would not work. That was not special 
interest. That was Senators and their staffs doing some homework. That 
is what killed that bill.
  This bill likewise, if people had a chance to read it and find out 
that it is so laden with subsidies and regulations and the fact that 
the FEC would just have to be multiplied in power and enforcement to 
carry this thing out, I think they would be appalled. I think there is 
no way in the world that they would allow this bill to pass. And so 
maybe that is the reason why we are obligated to be here in the middle 
of the night, maybe all night long to oppose this package.
  Mr. President, the total amount of money that we are talking about as 
far as subsidies--I have mentioned it in some cases, but I will tell 
you the Republican Policy Committee, which I happen to be chairman of, 
estimates the cost of this bill in the hundreds of millions of dollars 
per cycle--hundreds of millions of dollars. So we are not talking about 
chicken feed.
  I have been talking about individual States because I think it is 
easier for people to comprehend, but we are talking about hundreds of 
millions of dollars. And if you look at the Senate cycle as such, when 
you go through the entire Senate cycle, the full 6-year cycle, you are 
probably talking about $1 billion-plus. You add all the broadcast 
subsidies, taxpayer subsidies because people do not comply, because 
they have to match the excessive funds, communication vouchers if they 
are put in because they were in the House bill and they are in the 
Senate, you add these together and you are talking about hundreds of 
millions of dollars of subsidies.
  I think that is unfortunate.
  Finally, Mr. President, I also want to touch this for a second, on 
the influence of special interest. Again, I am kind of amused when 
somebody wants to come up and say health care was killed because of 
special interest or campaign reform was killed because of special 
interest, or campaign reform was killed because of special interest, 
lobbying, whatever. I see a lot of special interest legislation, and I 
see a lot of special interest involved in this legislation, some of 
which is kind of shocking and some of which--I do not know--some of 
which is just amazing to see that it has power to the degree it does.
  I am talking about even impacting foreign policy. I recently read 
that there are individuals who are involved in representing the Haitian 
Government that are receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the 
Haitian Government. I say the Haitian Government, I am talking about 
Mr. Aristide in exile.
  Mr. President, I have let it be known that I oppose the military 
occupation of Haiti, and I made two or three speeches opposing a 
military invasion of Haiti, and we have had a military invasion of 
Haiti. I am very pleased that it was one that was not hostilely 
received, at least to date. I am pleased, at least to date, that we 
have had no loss of American lives.
  But you have to look at how we got in this position. We are pleased 
that it did not explode and we did not have Americans lose their lives, 
but we still now are in the process of putting 15,000 Americans in to 
occupy Haiti.
  How did we get there? And what is happening? Mr. President, I tell 
you, I do not get bothered too much by different things I read, but 
when I read in the Wall Street Journal on June 16, 1994 from Port-au-
Prince to Gucci gulch that lobbyists, paid by Mr. Aristide, received 
hundreds of thousands of dollars in just a few months, their basic 
retainer was $55,000 a month, that bothered me. Then when I see we 
basically have adopted what they were asking for as our policy and 
risking U.S. lives to implement that policy, that bothers me. It 
bothers me from a lot of standpoints.
  Talk about a lobbying bill or talk about influence and special 
interest, is this a special interest? We have been risking American 
lives to put Mr. Aristide back in power. I do not think Mr. Aristide is 
a democrat in the sense of a George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas 
Jefferson, or a Democrat in our sense. I have read some of his speeches 
that were just a couple, 3 years old--1990, 1991--that were very much 
against democracy, that were even opposing elections.
  I have also read his speeches where he is advocating murdering his 
opponents, talking about necklacing his opponents, where you put a tire 
around somebody's neck, fill it with gasoline, and set it on fire. I do 
not see that as a kind of democrat that I want to reinstate in power. 
That speech was made in 1991.
  So why are we following this type of policy? Was it politics? Was it 
because of the lobbying firm that Mr. Aristide has been spending 
hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe millions of dollars to 
influence American policy, the fact he has employed a former 
Congressman to be involved in this, has close connections with the 
White House--why have we adopted this as our policy? Why are we risking 
thousands of lives to put Mr. Aristide back in power when he has such 
an atrocious human rights record of his own? That bothers me. And it 
bothers me a lot. Yet now we are occupying Haiti. I know some people 
are doing high-fives: ``Hey, the invasion went forward. We didn't lose 
lives. Isn't it great?'' Now what do we have? We have United States 
occupation of Haiti.
  Then I hear people say we see rioting over there, we are going to 
stop that because we control Haiti. Do we really want to control Haiti? 
Does that mean that we have Haiti's problems? If Haiti has a police 
problem, that is now a United States problem? We have kind of assumed 
their problem? I question the wisdom of that. How long are we even 
going to be there to solve that problem? They had a riot a couple of 
days ago. The President said he is very bothered by it. I hated to see 
it. Somebody was clubbed. It was done right in front of us. It is a 
terrible thing, so we are going to stop that now. Are we going to stop 
that 10 years from now? Are we going to stop that 20 years from now? I 
just question that.
  And I question, wait a minute, how did we get there? I read David 
Broder's article where he talks about using a little analogy. He said 
it is like somebody being on the sixth floor of a window and they jump 
and the firemen are there and they catch the individual and the safety 
net works and the individual is not harmed. So there is celebration: 
``Hey, this is great. The individual was in jeopardy, we saved him and 
everything is great.''
  But then after the individual is safe, you have to start asking the 
question, wait a minute, why was that individual there? You start 
shaking the individual: What in the world were you doing on the ledge? 
Why did you put yourself in such a precarious position?
  Why have we put 15,000 American troops in such a precarious position 
to implement this so-called Haitian policy, which has vacillated from 
day one? Why should we risk those lives to put Mr. Aristide back in 
power? Mr. Aristide is not worth the life of one U.S. soldier, and yet 
we are risking lives of countless U.S. soldiers to put him back in 
power.
  Then I see that Mr. Aristide, while he is in exile in the United 
States living high on the hog in New York and Washington, DC, is giving 
lobbyists thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and yet Haiti is 
the poorest country in this hemisphere and people are hungry and people 
are starving and people are in a deplorable situation. The economy of 
Haiti is pathetic. Yet, he is spending $55,000 a month?
  This firm, I think, in one 3-month period of time received something 
like $300,000. At least that is the report. Maybe this is incorrect. 
According to this report--I will just read it: ``$303,000 for billings 
between September 29 and December 7 of 1993.'' That is only 2\1/2\ 
months, $300,000. That is a pretty good billing rate. Sounds to me like 
Mr. Aristide and some of his cohorts and friends are ripping off the 
Haitian people, spending their money over in the United States.
  I wonder if some of those moneys end up in political campaigns? I do 
not know, but it is absurd to think that we have adopted Mr. Aristide's 
political policy and maybe that of this lobbying firm and maybe that of 
Mr. Robinson and maybe that of the Black Caucus and risk American lives 
to implement it.
  Are American interests at stake? We have an interest. Is our national 
interest in jeopardy? Are the lives of the American people at risk 
because of the Haitian actions? I do not think so. Are there American 
lives in Haiti, are they at risk? I do not think so. As a matter of 
fact, they are probably put at greater risk because we were 
contemplating and moving forward with an invasion than there would be 
if there is no invasion.
  There is no national security risk. This was not Grenada. This was 
not Panama. At least in Grenada we had the Cubans who were building an 
airfield, who were risking the lives of United Students students, who 
had murdered the leader in Grenada, and it was important to move and 
move quickly. We did it, the job was done and we were out.
  In Panama, likewise, we had some national security interests and Mr. 
Noriega was doing a lot of things, plus we also had the Panama Canal 
which is very much a strategic national interest.
  But in Haiti, the President said, ``Well, we want to stem the flow of 
drugs.'' We have more drugs coming from the Bahamas and other countries 
than from Haiti. We want to stem the flow of the migrants coming from 
Haiti to the United States. That is primarily because the President has 
tightened the economic sanctions, which should be lifted, hurting the 
Haitian people a lot more than it has hurt the generals.
  Then the President made a national televised speech to kind of whip 
up this hysteria, why we can justify this invasion, called Mr. Cedras 
and his cohorts murderous people who have plundered the country and 
responsible for raping the women and so on. And yet 2 days later we are 
talking about a partner in managing the country. I think, wait a 
minute, how could this be our policy?
  And I keep going back to this article. Mr. Aristide spent hundreds of 
thousands of dollars, and I think he has been pretty successful in 
really getting the administration to adopt their line. Is this 
something that maybe should be covered in this campaign bill? Where is 
the money coming from? How did that influence our policy?
  Mr. President, instead, no, we are talking about how can we subsidize 
campaigns. We are not talking about serious things, we are talking 
about how can we subsidize campaigns. We are not doing our business. We 
are not passing appropriations bills.
  We have a Department of Defense appropriations bill that we really 
need to consider, that some of us want to talk about because that bill 
is going to come out and we are going to find out we are not buying any 
more planes, we are not buying any more tanks, we are not buying any 
more ships--a couple of ships. The number of ships has gone from 546 in 
the Navy a couple years ago to 346 in the next couple of years. That is 
the result of this 5-year plan the administration is trying to put 
forward.
  It is an acceleration of the reduction of defense, dramatically, as 
proposed by President Bush and Secretary Cheney. I think we should talk 
about that. I think we should talk about the multinational commitments 
that we continue to make and the President is trying to make in Haiti 
and also in Yugoslavia, in Somalia, Rwanda and all these other places 
where we want to basically assign U.S. responsibility over 
multinational forces, to where the President gets a U.N. resolution to 
carry out an invasion of Haiti but cannot get a resolution through the 
United States Congress. I think we should talk about some things that 
are really current, really important.
  No, we are talking about how we can subsidize campaigns. We are 
talking about how much more money we can have the taxpayers pay for 
Congressmen and Senators so they can get reelected. I find that to be 
absurd.
  We have an Entitlements Commission that says we want to limit the 
growth of entitlements. Some of these are exploding, and yet we are 
trying to create a new one for politicians, entitlements for 
politicians. Food stamps for politicians? No, it is too kind of a term. 
You have to have income eligibility. This one you can be a 
multimillionaire candidate and can still get massive subsidies from 
Uncle Sam to help pay for your campaign. I find that to be absurd.
  No, entitlements are growing as a percentage of our national budget 
and we want to start a brandnew one to make sure politicians are cut in 
on the deal. I find that to be absurd. I find it to be absurd that we 
are going to be taking up a bill where conferees were not appointed for 
10 months, and now we are going to try to appoint them in the last 2 
weeks and craft out a deal and run it through at the midnight hour and 
pass it. Mr. President, some of us just are not willing to let that 
happen. Some of us are willing to use procedural techniques that we 
have under the rules of the Senate to make sure we do not pass bad 
legislation. If it is a health care bill or if it is a campaign bill or 
if it is another bill where it is going to be passing really bad 
legislation, that is one of the reasons why we have unlimited debate in 
the Senate.
  So I compliment the Senator from Kentucky. He has shown great 
courage, and I will tell you, it has not been easy. It is not easy to 
stand up on the floor and be willing to say, ``Hey, I will stay here 
all night if necessary.'' He has been willing to do it. I think the 
taxpayers of this country owe Senator McConnell a great deal of 
gratitude because he has been willing to say we are not going to have 
taxpayers subsidizing campaigns.
  We do not want it. Republicans do not want it. So if people want to 
say, is this a partisan issue? Yes, it is. Republicans are almost 
unanimous, I believe almost totally unanimous against having taxpayers 
subsidize campaigns, and the bill that we have before us and the House 
bill that we have that would both go to conference have massive, 
massive taxpayer subsidies, and we do not want it.
  So we will use what procedural techniques that we have available 
under the rules of the Senate to make sure it does not happen. The 
majority leader has to recognize when we say we are serious about not 
letting this bill pass that we are serious. If he wants to go through 
the charade of making us enforce it, we are willing to do that. 
Hopefully he will recognize when we say we are serious, we are serious.
  So I compliment the Senator from Kentucky for his tenacity, his 
courage, for his conviction, for his willingness, because the taxpayers 
owe you, particularly, a great debt of gratitude. I think by your 
efforts we have been able to stop a bill that would rip the taxpayers 
off and, for that, I just say thank you for your leadership.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Before the Senator from Oklahoma leaves the floor, I 
was listening to him for awhile here and then in the cloakroom. I was 
thinking about some of these battles we have had before. I know he was 
here consistently in a stalwart fashion every step of the way. I was 
thinking of 1988 when there were 8 cloture votes and people were being 
arrested and hauled to the floor. I was listening to the Senator finish 
up there.
  They have had a hard time figuring out we do not like this bill. 
Maybe, here, after all these years, we are going to be able to finally 
make the point that this is not going to pass.
  The Senator from Oklahoma, very skillfully, I thought, outlined once 
again the outrage the public feels about this. Obviously we are going 
to kill this bill. We are trying to kill this bill. We intend to kill 
this bill. We make no apologies for stopping bad legislation. The 
Senator from Oklahoma pointed out, in addition, extended debate of this 
subject is useful. We watched what happened as we discussed health care 
for a year and everybody learned a lot about it, including ourselves. 
Things that I thought at the beginning of the year I did not think at 
the end of the year. Certainly the public went through different phases 
in the course of that debate.
  What we have not had, I think, in this area--particularly for the 
last year or so--is a good debate so the American people could 
understand that this Congress in the 11th hour is thinking of setting 
up a new entitlement program at their expense to pay for our political 
campaigns. I think the public needs to understand that and we are going 
to make sure they do understand it.
  I really appreciate the Senator from Oklahoma at every step along the 
way in this long, 7-year fight to try to finally drive stake through 
the heart of this goofy proposal. I really want to thank the Senator 
from Oklahoma for always being here, always being articulate, and right 
on the mark. This time, of course, he had to do it in the middle of the 
night. So I really want to thank him.
  Mr. President, I see the Senator from Utah is here and wide awake. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am here. I will not certify to the wide 
awake, but I will admit to being here and ready to go. I was interested 
to hear my friend from Oklahoma talk in the vein he did because I find 
I am in the same vein, at least with respect to the basic question of 
why we are here and why we are doing this.
  The answer goes back to a reference in the press, where someone 
speculated about what the President would do with respect to the defeat 
of his health care proposal. According to this journalist, the 
President's response would be to push for congressional reform and 
campaign reform and then give, as his rationale for that, his 
conviction that it was the special interests that had killed health 
care. In other words, the reason we are here debating a bill that 
passed the Senate 15 months ago, and the House 10 months ago, and then 
has been available for conference ever since, is that the President has 
suddenly discovered an excuse that he can use for the failure of the 
democratically-controlled Congress to give him his health care 
proposal.
  Like the Senator from Oklahoma, I applaud the Congress for its 
failure to give the President his health care proposal. I opposed it. I 
have spoken about it many times. I will not take the time or 
opportunity now to outline all of the reasons for my opposition 
because, as I say, the country now knows that a majority of the 
Congress in both Houses agrees with that opposition.
  But we are here because, as I say, someone in the White House, some 
spin doctor has decided that resurrecting the campaign reform bill will 
somehow get the public's mind off of the health care issue and at the 
same time give the President two for one. It will push a bill that is 
basically an incumbent protection act, and since most of the incumbents 
in Congress are members of the President's own party, an incumbent 
protection act makes a whole lot of political sense. So that is why we 
are here. We have an opportunity to accomplish two purposes with one 
bill. As I say, number 1 we get people's minds off why the health care 
bill did not succeed and, No. 2, we push an incumbent protection bill. 
What can be better than a two-for-one deal?
  The Republicans have decided they do not want to let that happen and 
so we are here, opposing this even to the point of an all night 
session.
  I want to talk about the first of these two, that is that we are here 
to get people's minds off why health care was defeated and make the 
point again, as the Senator from Oklahoma made, that health care was 
not defeated because of special interests. Rather than give you my 
brilliant reasoning on this, because at this hour it might not be that 
brilliant, I will read an article that appeared in the Wall Street 
Journal on Thursday, September 22, by Michael Rothschild. He is 
President of the Bionomics Institute in San Francisco. And he addresses 
this issue, of why the health care proposal by the President did not 
make it. Quoting, now, from the article he says:
       One year after President Clinton unveiled his health care 
     plan to the nation, that plan--along with the slew of 
     compromise versions it spawned--is dead and gone. But the 
     blame game is just starting. Extreme partisanship, special-
     interest lobbying, Rush Limbaugh, negative advertising, 
     administration bumbling, Whitewater, and the public's 
     cynicism about Washington top the list of common excuses.
       But excuses are not explanations. Pinning the defeat on 
     ``Harry and Louise'' or any other tactic is an act of self-
     delusion. With initial public support well above 60%, nonstop 
     campaigning by Hillary Clinton, control of Congress, and 
     overwhelming support from the national media, the president 
     should have been able to pass any reasonable health care 
     bill. But what is reasonable inside Washington is no longer 
     reasonable to the American people.
       Oozing elitism, Beltway cognoscenti would have us believe 
     that the American people were confused by campaign-style 
     rhetoric and never understood the Clinton plan. But as the 
     town meetings, newspaper analyses, talk shows and 
     congressional debates wore on, the American people figured 
     out this much: Though Mr. Clinton promised a ``simple'' plan 
     that would guarantee choice along with security, he delivered 
     a numbingly complicated 1,342 page plan that put another 14% 
     of the economy under the control of federal bureaucrats.


                              old concepts

       This approach to social reform--widely accepted just 25 
     years ago--no longer makes sense to an American public whose 
     daily lives have been radically transformed by the first 
     decades of the Information Age. Top-down social engineering 
     by Washington's central planners is now intuitively rejected 
     as an anachronism, a hopelessly inefficient throwback to the 
     bygone era of the Machine Age.
       Though camouflaged as state-of-the art social policy for an 
     America entering the hyper-competitive 21st-century global 
     economy, the Clinton plan merely extended concepts first 
     enacted under Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. Consider Mr. 
     Clinton's remarks to die-hard supporters greeting the health 
     care bus tour in Independence, Mo., just days before the 
     plan's final demise. ``Sixty years ago this fight started,'' 
     he said. ``Fifty years ago, Truman tried it three times and 
     failed. Twenty-nine years ago President Johnson signed 
     Medicare into law. . . . We're halfway home and we can go all 
     the way.''
       Need it be said that today's economy is unrecognizably 
     different from Lyndon Johnson's '60s, not to mention the '40s 
     or '30s? Back then, no one doubted that economic power would 
     become ever more concentrated in massive, centralized 
     hierarchies--from IBM and Sears to Washington and Moscow. 
     Advanced technology meant bigger mainframes and more power 
     for the bureaucracies that controlled them. The most 
     optimistic outcome of the Cold War anyone could predict was a 
     concordant between big capitalism and big socialism. Command-
     and-control hierarchies ruled the earth and put men on the 
     moon.
       Then, in 1971, just two years after Apollo 11 reached 
     Tranquility Bay, three young engineers at an unknown 
     California start-up named Intel invented the micro-processor 
     and changed the world. By 1982, the computer-on-a-chip began 
     showing up on desktops across America.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order of debate.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I think I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from 
Oklahoma is correct. The Senator from Utah is required to speak on the 
business currently before the Senate.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma may not have 
been here when I introduced this particular topic. One of the reasons 
we are debating this topic, in my opinion, according to press reports 
is that the President is seeking a diversion from the failure of his 
health care proposal. And I am making the point that the failure of his 
health care proposal does not spring from the existence of undue 
pressure on Members of Congress by virtue of campaign reform. When I 
have finished making that point I will, indeed, return to my second 
point that I made in my introduction which was that this campaign 
reform bill is an incumbent protection bill.
  So I simply intend to finish reading this editorial and then will go 
forward with the point I am making. But it is germane to the issue 
before us.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for just an observation?
  Mr. BENNETT. I will yield to the Senator from Kentucky for an 
observation.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have been here all day listening to the debate. The 
occupant of the chair has only been here for the last couple hours. 
There has been much discussion during the course of the debate today 
about how this issue fits in with the other issues as we go forward to 
the conclusion of this session. And, so, the observations of the 
Senator from Utah are not at all out of line with many that I have 
heard throughout the afternoon, to which no objection has been made.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I will as I stated, finish reading this 
editorial and then, as I said, return to my basic point about the bill 
before us. But I think the editorial is germane because, as I say, it 
makes the point that the loss of the health care bill is not due to 
improper pressures on Congress that could be fixed by this bill.
  With that understanding, I go back to the editorial:

       By 1982, the computer-on-a-chip began showing up on 
     desktops across America. From that moment on, real decision-
     making power began shifting from MIS directors to midnight 
     hackers, from headquarters staffers to factory managers, from 
     big-time CEOs to no-name entrepreneurs. Apple Computer's 
     famous ``1984'' TV ad captured the spirit of this historical 
     watershed.
       Over the past decade, relentless competitive pressure from 
     Japan and Southeast Asia's Tigers compelled all but the most 
     brain-dead U.S. companies to reinvent themselves. Using PCs, 
     faxes, voicemail, e-mail, local area networks, cellular 
     phones and satellite uplinks, they slashed costs, cut cycle 
     time, boosted quality and accelerated responsiveness.
       To make it all work, centralized hierarchies were flattened 
     into decentralized, horizontal networks where people stopped 
     taking orders from bosses and started taking responsibility 
     for results. And while the big firms downsized, an 
     entrepreneurial army of Fortune 500 refugees--several million 
     strong--launched their own small firms using the same 
     microprocessor-based tools. Mikhail Gorbachev preached 
     economic restructuring, while America practiced real 
     perestroika.
       Almost overnight, what had once been the world's premier 
     Machine Age economy became the world's first Information Age 
     economy. The significance of this metamorphosis is only now 
     being appreciated. Just this month, the world Economic Forum 
     made official what many in the business community intuitively 
     knew--the U.S. is once again the world's most competitive 
     economy.
       From a policy-making standpoint, this transformation 
     created an American economy vastly more complex than it used 
     to be. Indeed, an information Age economy is more like an 
     evolving ecosystem than a predictable ``economic engine.'' 
     Like an ecosystem, an Information Age economy is far too 
     complex to be designed. It must evolve spontaneously. Who 
     planned the rainforest? Who planned the personal computer 
     industry? In both market economies and natural ecosystems, 
     ``unmanaged'' competition and continuous adaptation yield 
     bewilderingly complex, yet enormously productive, living 
     systems.
       How did America's epochal transformation from a Machine Age 
     to an Information Age economy affect the Clinton approach to 
     health care reform? Apparently, not at all. The plan drafted 
     by Hillary Clinton and Ira Magaziner, coordinator of Mrs. 
     Clinton's Health Care Task Force, reflects classic Machine 
     Age thinking: Centralize decisions through monopoly power, 
     ensure stability through tight controls, insist on a ``one 
     size fits all'' standard, and allow no room for local 
     innovation. Plan everything out in advance--to the last nit-
     picking detail.
       Newly released secret task force documents show that 
     Hillary and Ira only feigned interest in proposals offered by 
     the public, Congress, and even administration officials. They 
     had already made the crucial design decisions. This should 
     come as no surprise. A complicated machine can't be designed 
     by a democracy. To ensure that its parts will mesh, you hire 
     the best engineer you can find, give him plenty of resources, 
     let him work in secret, and announce the product when it's 
     ready.
       I worked with Ira Magaziner years ago at the Boston 
     Consulting Group. Like many others, I can attest to his 
     intelligence, attention to detail, and maniacal work ethic. 
     If you're looking for a social engineer, he's the best there 
     is. But the era of the social engineer ended with the demise 
     of the Machine Age. Ira is a mainframe in an age of networked 
     PCs.
       Years after IBM itself abandoned the mainframe ideology, 
     Washington's policy wonks still don't get it. Think back to 
     the opening line of President Clinton's healthcare speech. 
     When he told the country, ``This health care system is badly 
     broken and we need to fix it,'' he revealed his own Machine 
     Age mindset--government as repairman, the engineer that can 
     redesign a busted ``market mechanism.''


                              fatal error

       Instead of proposing an elegantly simple, market-based 
     solution like Medical Savings Accounts supplemented with 
     vouchers for the truly needy, Mr. Clinton's Machine Age 
     technocrats believed that if enough really smart, really 
     hard-working, really well-intentioned social engineers--say, 
     500 health care experts--worked under the right conditions, 
     they'd come up with the ultimate policy contraption. Now, 
     stunned by defeat, they're looking for scapegoats. Watch your 
     back, Ira!

  Parenthetically, Mr. President, that, as I have said, is what this is 
about. We are looking for scapegoats in congressional and campaign 
reform.
  Back to the editorial. There are just two paragraphs left to read:

       In the '60s, Bill, Hillary, Ira & Co. dreamed wonderful 
     undergraduate dreams about saving America from the 
     depredations of big capitalism. Their fatal strategic error--
     the one destroying this presidency along with the health care 
     plan--has been their failure to realize that Machine Age 
     America no longer exists. Liberated by the microprocessor, 
     the rest of us created a new American society, while the 
     Clinton crowd made the long climb to power.
       Having learned from two decades of radical economic 
     restructuring, the American people know what it takes to 
     produce world-class results at globally competitive costs. 
     Now they insist that their government perform as well as they 
     do. From personal experience, they know that top-down, 
     command-and-control bureaucracies are obsolete. The pundits 
     may dismiss this hard-nosed realism as ornery cynicism, but 
     the real story is a political/media elite utterly out of 
     touch with the deeper forces remaking America's economy, 
     society and politics.

  Mr. President, that is the end of the editorial.
  So I make the point, as I indicated at the opening of my statement, 
that an attempt to get our minds off why health reform died by now 
putting campaign reform and congressional reform at the top of the list 
of urgent things this Congress must do is an attempt that will fail. 
People properly examining the death of the health care plan will 
understand that it was not for lack of campaign reform that this 
happened.
  Now, let us address specifically the question of campaign reform and 
why it will not, in fact, produce the results that are advertised for 
it by those who are pushing this particular bill.
  Mr. President, I am a new Member of this body having served here less 
than 2 years. But I am not new to Washington, a fact that my opponent 
kept throwing at me during the campaign in Utah when he kept saying, 
``Bob is not an outsider.'' And he cited my experience here. My only 
defense against that attack was to say, ``Well, I haven't been there 
for 18 years. So maybe I have been able to shed some of the taint that 
comes from being an insider, and by the way, you are an incumbent 
Congressman; therefore, a little bit more inside than I.'' But that was 
the debate that we had on that occasion.
  When I was in Washington before, I was involved in campaigns. I was 
involved in President Nixon's first campaign in 1968. I was asked if I 
wanted to be involved in a serious way in his campaign in 1972. I 
declined for a variety of reasons. But the whole question of campaigns 
and how campaigns are financed is one with which I was very familiar. I 
remember the outcry that we had in this country when it was discovered 
that Clement Stone had given Richard Nixon over seven figures in 
contributions, over $1 million from one campaign contributor to the 
Presidential campaign of Richard Nixon. That is outrageous people said, 
that one man, one executive, one rich contributor could have that much 
influence.
  Lest we think that this was confined to the Republicans, there was a 
young man who had inherited a great deal of money from his grandfather 
in General Motors stock. I believe his name was Mott, who gave more 
money to George McGovern. Again, the outcry that one contributor can 
give seven-figure contributions. What will that contributor demand in 
return, we were asked? On the floor here in the Senate, people took the 
floor and spoke from these same desks and attacked the corruption of a 
system that allowed one contributor to give seven figures, over $1 
million, to a campaign. They talked darkly of buying ambassadorships, 
attacking all of the implications that came from those giant 
contributions.
  What was to be the reform, the campaign contribution reform that 
would take care of all of this? Well, someone discovered the political 
action committee, the PAC, and said, ``Here is the reform that will 
solve the problem.'' I remember it very well. One of my clients when I 
was conducting my own consulting firm was the Summa Corp., the 
corporate embodiment, if you will, of the American industrialist, 
Howard Hughes. Mr. Hughes was one of those who was attacked for 
improper political activity because of the size of his contributions. 
But at Hughes Aircraft Corp., the Hughes company had come up with the 
answer to these attacks, and it was the Hughes PAC, the political 
action committee.
  This is how it worked. This was, as I say, the model that many people 
pointed to as the pure and the proper and the right way to finance 
campaigns. At the Hughes Aircraft Corp., the managers would circulate 
envelopes and information about the Hughes PAC to all of the employees. 
They would say, ``If you will fill out this form and put in a check, 
$5, $10, $25, whatever, we will pool your money, your employee money, 
and deliver it to the candidates of your choice, the people you 
instruct us to. You can put on your form you want this to go to a 
Republican, you want this to go to a Democrat. You can put on your form 
you want this to go to candidate A, candidate B, whatever.''
  Since almost all of the Hughes employees participated in that, there 
was a substantial sum of money to be handed out by the Hughes political 
action committee. And at Hughes Aircraft, candidates for statewide 
office, Governor, Senator, attorney general, et cetera, would be told 
on such and such a day our employees will be given half an hour, some 
other period of time off, if you want to come and make your pitch.
  So every state-wide candidate would look forward to the opportunity 
to go to Hughes Aircraft and give a speech to the employees, at the end 
of which the employees would fill out the forms, put in their 
contribution, whatever it was, and then 10 days later, or whatever, the 
Hughes political action committee would give that candidate a single 
check representing the sum of those individual contributions.
  It could be quite substantial. It could be five figures. It could be 
six figures. But it was pure money because no one individual put in 
more than $25 or $30 into his or her envelopes, and the candidate would 
come to have an opportunity to speak before 1,000 potential voters. It 
was an essential stop on the road for every single candidate to make in 
California at the time.
  So people said, ``Let us take the political action committee concept 
and let us write it into Federal law. PAC's are the solution to the 
corruption represented in Clement Stone's seven-figure contribution to 
Richard Nixon.''
  What did we learn from that experience after we passed those campaign 
reform laws in the post-Watergate era? What we learned was that the 
American people are very inventive when it comes to finding ways around 
regulations they do not like. Instead of the Hughes Aircraft model 
being the model for political action committees, we began to get a 
circumstance where people would create multiple PAC's and get around 
the regulation that a PAC could only give $5,000 to a candidate. Pretty 
soon they were saying, ``Well, there are two elections involved. There 
is a primary as well as a general election. So we give $10,000 per 
cycle if a candidate has a primary opponent.''
  In Utah, we have a convention as well as a primary, as well as a 
general election. I have received $15,000 from PAC's because I had an 
opponent three times. So we can do the cycle three times in Utah. Maybe 
I should not announce that. In other States they will now start 
creating a convention to go before the primary to thereby add 50 
percent to the availability of PAC money.
  But as we debate this issue on the floor now, we are hearing much of 
the same rhetoric we heard about Clement Stone. Only now the object of 
the abuse is the PAC which was created as the solution for the previous 
problem.
  As I say, what we have learned from this experience is that the 
American people are very inventive, and they figure out ways to 
multiply the impact of the PAC.
  So if a special interest group wants to, they will organize PAC A, 
which will give each candidate $10,000--$5,000 for the primary, $5,000 
for the general. Then they will organize PAC B that will give the same 
candidate $10,000--$5,000 for the primary, $5,000 for the general. If 
that is not enough, they will create PAC C, and so on.
  We have seen the multiplication of PAC's, and we have seen the outcry 
now that they are buying the Congress and corrupting us all and we must 
pass this legislation to do something about it.
  Pardon me if I am a little bit jaded having lived through the 
circumstance that created the PAC. I am convinced that if we pass all 
of this tough legislation that abolishes them, what will we find? The 
inventive American mind will find ways around this just as they did 
last time, and we will be having the same debate in another 5 or 10 
years or so. I cannot predict in what form that solution will come 
because I am not that inventive, but I am assured from history that 
someone will find a way around whatever restrictions we create.
  I did discover in my own race the current way around PAC's, at least 
the way around the bad odor that attaches to PAC's in some areas. I 
discovered the process of bundling. Bundling did not exist when I was 
involved in Washington before. So there was a new discovery that came 
to me as I came back into political activity. I did it because one of 
my opponents made great political hay out of the fact that he would not 
accept PAC money. He said, ``I am pure. I will not accept special 
interest money. I will not accept a dime from a single PAC.'' I 
thought, boy, that is pretty tough. I am not sure I can do that. I am 
not sure I can survive without accepting some PAC money. I was here in 
Washington on a trip from Utah talking to some PAC's, and they 
explained to me how it is possible to receive very substantial 
contributions from special interests and still not accept any PAC 
money. And that was my first introduction to bundling.

  Now, Mr. President, on the assumption that there is someone out there 
who is awake and paying attention and would be interested, I will 
explain what bundling is as it was explained to me and as it happened 
in our campaign in Utah. Instead of going to contributors for $5, $10, 
or $25 contributions in the style of the Hughes Aircraft PAC, the head 
bundler goes to wealthy individuals and says, ``I want $1,000, but do 
not make out your check to the ABC PAC. Make out your check to 
candidate ABC.''
  Well, the donor does not know candidate ABC at all, never heard of 
him. It does not matter. He trusts the individual who is doing the 
bundling. And so the donor makes out his check to candidate ABC. And 
the bundler goes to the next donor and to the next donor, and so on. 
And pretty soon, again using an example out of my own campaign, my 
opponent had $50,000 from a particular group but it consisted of 50 
$1,000 checks. They had been bundled together and handed to him as if 
they were a single contribution, but he reported them very properly, 
very honestly and very openly on his FEC report as 50 $1,000 
contributions from 50 individuals.
  We wondered why these particular individuals would be supporting my 
opponent instead of me since not one of them lived in the State of Utah 
or seemed to have any interest in the State of Utah. So members of my 
campaign staff started calling them, their names and addresses duly 
available in the FEC report. In response to the phone call, the 
individuals would say, ``I do not remember anybody by that name,'' when 
we would give them the name of my opponent. Then we would say, ``Well, 
you made out a $1,000 check in a campaign contribution to that 
individual.''
  And they would say, ``Oh, yes. Oh, yes. I remember now.'' And then 
they would say that so and so asked them to make their contribution in 
that fashion rather than in the usual fashion of making out the check 
to a PAC. And I suddenly realized this is a wonderful, legal way to 
avoid the $10,000 limit that a PAC has with respect to an individual. 
This individual, in one stop, in one city walked away with $50,000 from 
a PAC which, if it had channeled the money through the PAC, could only 
have given him at that point $5,000 because the second and third point 
in the cycle had not yet occurred.
  I am not criticizing my opponent for doing this. I was delighted for 
the information that I received following up on his tracks because it 
was part of my education.
  Now, I understand in the bill before us bundling is outlawed, just as 
PAC's are attacked, and I think that is an appropriate thing. But I 
also understand that there is one exception to that.
  In the bill before us, bundling is outlawed for everyone except 
Emily's List. What is Emily's List, again, for those who may be 
watching, may still be suffering from insomnia? Emily's List is a PAC 
that gives money only to women who are Democrats. In other words, by 
saying that Emily's List is exempt from the prohibition on bundling, 
the Congress of the United States is going to say that women candidates 
who are Democrat also are a privileged class in this society receiving 
a privilege under the law which men who are Democrats cannot receive, 
or women who are Republicans cannot receive.
  Indeed, one of the leaders of the group involved in Emily's List has 
publicly stated that the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] is not an 
authentic woman because she does not endorse the political goals of 
Emily's List.
  I find that a very interesting kind of comment by a political leader. 
In our society, we can say whatever we want about political candidates 
and political officeholders. I would dispute the charge that Senator 
Hutchison is not an authentic woman. But that is the debate that goes 
on here. But the people who hold that opinion, who say that the Senator 
from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] is not an authentic woman because she is 
not a Democrat have under this bill a right that no other PAC, no other 
group has.
  I think that is enormously hypocritical, Mr. President, to say we are 
going to purge ourselves of the evil nature of bundling and PAC's 
unless the people who are the beneficiaries of that happen to be women 
candidates who happen to be Democrats.
  Well, this thing is filled with hypocrisy in many other ways, and I 
think the most serious hypocrisy comes from the debate that went on 
while it was passing here prior to the time when we started thinking 
about a conference report when many of my colleagues said this is a 
bill to level the playing field. By virtue of this campaign reform, we 
will take away the advantage that an incumbent has. The time has come 
to do something for the challenger. It reminds me of a line out of the 
musical that has been revived on Broadway called ``Guys and Dolls.''
  Those of you who are familiar with that musical remember there is a 
point where one of the characters, Nathan Detroit, is trying to win 
some money off of another character, Sky Masterson by making him a bet, 
and Nathan Detroit has previously determined the facts that make it 
possible for him to know something that Sky Masterson would not know. 
So he is betting Sky Masterson in what is a sucker bet because Nathan 
Detroit already knows the outcome. And Sky Masterson, even though it 
looks like a very logical bet from his point of view, refuses to make 
it and then gives Nathan Detroit this piece of advice. He said when he 
was starting out as a gambler, he, Sky Masterson, was given this advice 
by his father, who said, ``Son, somewhere along the road, somebody is 
going to show you a new deck of cards on which the seal has not been 
broken. And he is going to offer to bet you that he can make that deck 
of cards rise up by itself out of the box and squirt cider in your 
ear.'' And he said, ``Son, do not take this bet because if you do, you 
are sure to get an earful of cider.''
  Well, do not take this bet on this bill, Mr. President, because if 
you do, and you are a challenger and you really think you are going to 
get a level field, you are going to end up with an earful of cider. 
This is a bill stacked as firmly as Nathan Detroit's bet against the 
challenger.
  Now, some people would say to me, ``Well, then, why are you opposed 
to it? You are now an incumbent. You should like this bill because it 
will make your reelection that much easier when the time comes.''
  That may be true, but I still have the memory of my experience as a 
challenger, and I think we have to tell the truth about this bill.
  By putting spending limits on the challenger as well as the 
incumbent, it appears to level the playing field. But what it does not 
explain to the American public that might feel that this is a fair 
leveling of the playing field is that the incumbent has ways of saving 
money in a campaign that the challenger can never match, so that if you 
say we are going to put a limit on the cash expenditures, we are really 
saying we are going to allow the incumbent to spend his cash or her 
cash all for media and we are going to force you, the challenger, to 
spend your cash on other things and the media disparity will clearly 
tilt in favor of the incumbent.
  Let me give you an example again from my own campaign, from my own 
experience.
  Like all of us who run for office, I had the naive belief that 
everybody in the State of Utah knew who I was, that by announcing for 
the Senate I would automatically enter the race with people anxious to 
hear what I had to say and what position I would take.
  The first poll that was taken after I announced for the race for the 
Republican nomination showed the following results. There were four of 
us in that race. One candidate who was first had 56 percent of the 
voters supporting him. I was fourth out of the four. I had 3 percent of 
the voters supporting me, and there was a 4-percent margin of error in 
the poll. So that statistically you might have argued that I was under 
water. How in the world am I going to close that gap? Nobody has heard 
of me.
  The same poll showed that the incumbent Congressman from the Second 
Congressional District in Utah, who was the Democratic nominee, was 
known to more than 60, 70 percent of the voters in the State. He had 
been in Congress for 8 years. That meant for 8 years he had had his 
face on the television. He had had his name in the headlines of the 
newspapers. He had been to Kiwanis Clubs and Rotary Clubs and Lions 
Clubs. He had been on plant tours. He had an 8-year head start by 
virtue of his incumbency.
  I do not begrudge him that coverage; that is appropriate coverage for 
a public official, but it is a very real political fact of life. I have 
discovered it myself since I have been elected.
  While I was a candidate, I would kill for an invitation to a Rotary 
Club, and I would get invitations to Rotary Clubs in little tiny towns 
that were having a hard time getting speakers. Now that I am the 
Senator, I have all the invitations I can handle, and more. When I 
would hold a town meeting as a candidate, as a challenger, as an 
unknown, the only way I could get people to come would be to buy their 
dinner. The largest area of expense in my preconvention FEC filing was 
for food. And everybody wanted to know why is Bob Bennett spending all 
that money for food? Is that not an improper campaign expenditure? 
Until I pointed out to them that the only way I could get delegates to 
the convention to come listen to me was to promise them a free dinner.
  An incumbent does not have to expend money for dinners to get people 
to come listen to him. An incumbent has an enormous head start. If I 
had had to limit my total expenditures as a challenger to a certain 
dollar amount and my opponent, an incumbent Congressman, had had the 
same dollar amount, I would have gone up against him having to deduct 
from my total the cost of all of those dinners, the cost of all of the 
attempts on my part to in any way come close to the name identification 
that he had by virtue of his office. So there is one place where in 
legislation we cannot by dollar figures say we are creating a level 
playing field between challenger and incumbent.
  A second area. As the race went along, by now in my narration I am 
the Republican nominee, so I am head to head with the Democratic 
Congressman, who is the Democratic nominee.
  He decides that he is going to expose my past, and he holds a press 
conference in which he announces the nefarious things that I have done 
in my past. The press Secretary who wrote his press release was paid 
for by the Federal taxpayers because he was the Congressman's press 
secretary.
  The apparatus that put together the copies of that press release and 
distributed it to every newspaper and television station throughout the 
State of Utah was paid for by the Federal taxpayers, because they were 
staffers for an incumbent Congressman and an incumbent Congressman was 
making a press release.
  When we rushed to answer those charges with our own statements for 
the press, the press secretary that wrote that press release was paid 
for out of campaign funds because I had no other source with which to 
pay him. The people who went around to the various newspapers and 
television stations to deliver our answer to his charges were paid for 
by campaign funds because I had no other place to go for the funds that 
I used in that circumstance.
  Once again, an incumbent has literally a million dollar staff. I come 
from one of the smallest States in the Union in terms of population. My 
staff budget is $1.5 million. I have a network of people across the 
State of Utah. I have offices in the four principal cities in the State 
of Utah where the population exists, with staffers paid by Federal 
dollars constantly staying in touch with the constituency. That is 
legitimate and proper, and I am not suggesting that it should not 
happen.
  But what an enormous political advantage that is, and any challenger 
to me who would duplicate that network of staffers throughout the State 
would have to do that out of campaign funds. But if we put a limit on 
the amount of dollars the challenger can spend, we are saying the money 
you spend to duplicate or at least try to compete with Senator 
Bennett's staff network throughout the State is money you cannot spend 
on media because there is a cap on the total number of dollars.
  Finally, there is the question of soft dollars, money that does not 
show up on FEC reports but, nonetheless, rebounds to the benefit of the 
candidates.
  Many of my colleagues have talked about this in greater length and 
with greater expertise than I have, so I will pass over it, other than 
to point it out; that the incumbent has an opportunity for soft dollars 
that the challenger has a very difficult time matching. Soft dollars 
being get-out-the-vote campaigns by special interest groups, the kind 
that say, ``OK, we have given you the maximum from our various PAC's, 
that shows up on your FEC reports. We will now go to our members''--say 
it is a labor union--``we will go to our union members with an 
independent mailing, with an independent get-out-the-vote activity.'' 
Say it is a group like the National Rifle Association. The National 
Rifle Association can come into a State and make a mailing to all of 
its members and endorse a candidate, and that never shows up on the 
candidate's FEC report. It happened in my State. The National Rifle 
Association happened to endorse my opponent. There I was with a mailing 
to some 50,000, 60,000 Utahns saying how wonderful my opponent was. If 
I were to match that with a mailing to all of those same people, I had 
to do it out of campaign funds. I did not have access to those soft 
dollars.
  No, if we try to say to the American people that this bill will 
establish a level playing field between challenger and incumbent, we 
are squirting cider in their ear, Mr. President. This does not 
establish a level playing field. This says every dime that the 
incumbent raises can go to media, where the challenger is faced with 
all of these other costs. And in the name of establishing parity 
between challenger and incumbent we are, in fact, putting an enormous 
burden on the challenger, and this is, in fact, not a campaign reform 
bill but an incumbent protection bill.
  Much has been made during this debate about the issue of public 
financing, and I want to talk about public financing for a little.
  We have heard examples about Lyndon LaRouche drawing $2 million in 
Federal funds, running a campaign while in jail. I will not repeat all 
of those. I would go, instead, to another example with which the 
American people might be a little bit more familiar, although he has 
now faded from the scene considerably, and that is David Duke. David 
Duke, you will recall, was a member of the State legislature in 
Louisiana. He ran for Governor. He ran for the Senate against the 
distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana, Senator Johnston, who 
chairs the Energy Committee on which I sit.
  This is what I understand the pattern is in a David Duke campaign. If 
I am wrong, I would be happy to have someone point it out to me and I 
will apologize to Mr. Duke, but this is what I understand from the 
published reports about Mr. Duke, and it sets a pattern of what can 
happen with public financing of campaigns.
  In a David Duke campaign, the campaign is run by a political 
consulting firm that draws a fee for its services out of the campaign 
contribution pool. That is not unusual. Most people have political 
consulting firms and they pay the fees out of their contribution pool. 
What is different about David Duke's campaign is the political 
consulting firm is owned and managed by David Duke, which means that he 
takes a percentage of the campaign contributions for himself in the 
form of salary as the President of his own political consulting firm.
  He goes farther than that. The political consulting firm contracts 
with an advertising agency that places the advertising for Mr. Duke's 
campaigns. The president and owner of the advertising agency is David 
Duke, so that he gets another fee, another salary from the campaign 
contributions that he puts in his pocket.
  There was an article in the Reader's Digest where someone who was 
close to Mr. Duke and working on his campaigns was horrified to hear 
him talk about his plans to run for President in terms of the amount of 
money he would make in Federal funds from the Presidential campaign.
  We had a similar circumstance, again, back in the State of Utah, and 
I will not use the name of the individual, but I remember part of my 
political education when, as a young man, I was talking to an old hand 
in Utah about a candidate who kept running and losing. He had a fanatic 
following that would always fund his campaigns, but he never seemed to 
win anything.
  I asked this old, experienced hand, ``Why does so and so keep running 
and losing? It seems ridiculous to me.'' And he smiled with the 
indulgence of the informed when speaking to the uninformed. He said, 
``Bob, you don't understand. That is how he earns his living. Every 2 
years he runs for something and he takes about $50,000 off the top of 
his campaign contributions and puts it in his pocket, and that is how 
he earns his living, running for office.''
  He finally got elected to something and that cut his income fairly 
significantly because he had to live on the salary that came with that 
particular office.
  What happens if we put Federal financing into congressional races? 
How many people will decide to earn their living running for office? I 
had an amendment to this bill on that point when it was on the floor of 
the Senate. I said if we really do believe what we say about helping 
the challenger, let us make this money available only to challengers. 
Let us only fund challengers. And then to make sure we do not encourage 
the David Duke phenomena, let us say it is good for two elections only; 
that is, if you are going to run for office and have the Federal 
Government pay your campaign expenses, you only get two bites of the 
apple. After that, if you have been rejected twice by the public, you 
are on your own and you have to raise your own money.
  No, neither of those amendments passed, although some of them did 
attract some votes from the other side of the aisle because this bill 
is essentially an incumbent protection act and those amendments would 
have cut the heart out of the idea of protecting the incumbent against 
the possibility of a challenger.
  Mr. President, if we want real congressional reform and campaign 
reform instead of reform that helps incumbents, there is an alternative 
available to us. I would suggest if the leadership of the Senate pays 
attention to any of this at this hour, that we talk about some 
alternatives that are available.
  I am a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and this week we 
reported out the Congressional Accountability Act. That, in my opinion, 
is genuine congressional reform. It does not go nearly far enough for 
the kind of reform I would like, but it is a move in the direction of 
congressional reform and it is broadly supported across the board. 
Senator Lieberman and Senator Grassley are the two principal cosponsors 
of this act. I am proud to be one of the other cosponsors of the act.
  Why are we not spending our time worrying about getting this bill to 
conference? It has passed the House. It has already passed the House, 
and broad bipartisan support in the Senate. If, indeed, the solution to 
our Nation's problems with respect to health care or anything else is 
cleaning up Congress, here is an opportunity to clean up Congress that 
has strong bipartisan support, passed the House, and is just waiting to 
go to the President's desk for signature.
  We have no date for it to be brought to the Senate floor. We are 
being told the leadership is looking at it. We are told, ``Well, that 
might not be what we want to do. Maybe we don't have time for that.'' 
We have time to address a bill that has been thoroughly discredited--
the bill that is before us--but somehow we do not have time to address 
a bill that has strong bipartisan support that goes to the heart of 
congressional reform.
  Mr. President, I hate to sound cynical. I still retain the optimism 
of a new Member. I came to this body with high hopes, and I retain 
those high hopes. I guess that shows the degree of immaturity on my 
part. No, I do not think so. I am delighted to be a U.S. Senator. It is 
a great honor to be a U.S. Senator, and I feel very good about this 
body, even when we are engaged in an exercise like the one we are 
engaged in at the moment.
  But I do have, I think, enough realism to go with my altruism about 
this job to recognize, even as a freshman Member, what is going on. 
What is going on was outlined, as I said at the beginning of my 
statement, clearly in the press, clearly in statements from people 
connected with the administration.
  Health care was the President's No. 1 priority. Health care was the 
issue on which he pegged his Presidency. Health care was the trophy 
that he planned to take to the voters in November 1994 and the engine 
that he thought would pull his Presidency into reelection in 1996. Now 
health care is in shambles, it is dead, and we need a diversion.
  As members of the administration have been quoted in the press, their 
diversion is to reach out for a bill that has been available to them 
for a conference for 10 months and suddenly elevate it to the level of 
a major national priority.
  It is a bad bill. The reason it has been lying dormant for 10 months 
is that everybody knows it is a bad bill. It is a bill dedicated to 
preserve the incumbents. It is a bill that will produce more mischief 
in our political dialog, rather than less. It is a bill that does not 
deserve to pass.
  So let us push it, nonetheless, because it will get our minds off 
what happened on health care. It will be good for incumbents. Most of 
the incumbents are members of the President's party, and if we do not 
get it, we will be able to accuse the Republicans of gridlock. We will 
be able to accuse the Republicans of obstructionism. We will be able to 
accuse the Republicans of not wanting genuine reform.
  Mr. President, as I say, this is a Republican who wants some genuine 
reform and has given some specific examples of how we can get it by 
passing the Congressional Accountability Act reported out of the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs last week. But this is a Senator who 
does not want the charade of saying that the solution to our health 
care problems in 1995 will come from passing this bill in 1994. That is 
a giant disconnect, and the American people know it.
  So, to summarize: Once again, I do not want a full employment bill 
for the David Dukes of this world so the Federal Government pays their 
salaries year after year, election after election. I do not want 
Federal funding of congressional elections. I do not want to pass an 
incumbent protection bill. And I do not think the American people want 
us to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, almost every candidate who ran in 1992 
promised change and reform. Unfortunately the campaign finance reform 
bill on the floor today is a hoax when it comes to change and reform. 
By letting politicians spend taxpayers' money for their campaigns, the 
campaign spending bill, as it ought to be called, is a billion dollar 
raid on the taxpayers' pockets. The spending limits in the bill 
inevitably will favor incumbents.
  Before coming to the Senate almost 2 years ago, I spent 45 years in 
the private sector, meeting a payroll as a businessman and as a farmer. 
This I did every Friday for 45 years. We will meet one again tomorrow--
today that is, now.
  I had never held an elective office until being elected to the 
Senate. I was running my own business, trying to make some money and 
create new jobs and wealth. All during this time I would watch as 
Congress went into session and adjourned, leaving it more and more 
difficult for me and all businessmen to run a business, to meet the 
payroll, to make the engine run. And they did this by passing new 
rules, new regulations. And I do not remember a time in the last 30 
years that the Congress went into session and came out that they did 
not leave it more difficult for the average businessman to function.
  It became apparent to me that most of the people in Congress either 
were ignorant of the effects of the laws that they passed on business, 
or they were actually hostile to the interests of business people. 
While I was running for the Senate I came to Washington to ask for the 
help of Republican Senators. I remember very clearly one of my first 
meetings was with my friend Don Nickles of Oklahoma. He expressed 
enthusiasm for my campaign and told me that we desperately needed more 
business people in the Congress and that only six or seven Members of 
the Senate, including Nickles, had ever been responsible for meeting a 
payroll.
  Needless to say, I was surprised and shocked. But it made perfect 
sense, as I considered how all the rules, regulations, and redtape that 
the Congress has passed have gotten so out of control that they 
threaten to destroy the very basis upon which the country is built, and 
that is the free enterprise system.
  We simply have made rules, regulated and passed laws until it is 
extremely difficult for a major segment of the business of this country 
to function. We continue to pass them every time we come into session, 
and this 103d session of Congress has been no exception. If we want 
real campaign reform, let us give the voters across the country what 
they overwhelmingly want, term limits. I think that term limits are a 
real solution and would bring about real change and real reform, unlike 
the campaign finance bill before us--rather the taxpayer's financing 
campaigns bill before us. I have already committed to serve no more 
than two terms in the Senate. I intend, when my term ends, to go back 
to my business and my farm, and I expect to live under the rules and 
laws that were passed while I was here.
  For too many in Congress today, Government has become a career. We 
have what columnist George Will calls a political class of professional 
politicians who make Government and spending taxpayers' money their 
full-time business.
  In addition to that, they have spawned a cadre--not a cadre, a 
multitude of bureaucrats in an overwhelming bureaucracy that is 
draining the lifeblood out of the country. The results of this are 
everywhere to be seen. Congress passes equal pay laws, civil rights 
laws, OSHA laws, all kinds of laws, and then exempts Congress from the 
laws that the private sector and the working people of this country 
have to live under. Professional politicians insulate themselves from a 
bad economy by the simple function of automatic pay raises and a salary 
that puts Members of the House and Senate in the top 1 or 2 percent of 
income for the Nation.
  Congress has privileges not available to the average citizen, a 
pension plan that is more generous than any pension in the private 
sector or for that matter even in the Federal Government. Congress has 
a staff of 37,000 employees. More congressional staff members work on 
Capitol Hill than the entire population of 11 State capitals.
  There is no faster growing bureaucracy in the world than the Congress 
itself. We have added staff, we have hired assistants, we have spread 
offices until, as I said earlier, we are simply bleeding the lifeblood 
out of the economy of the country, trying to support a Government that 
has grown far too big.
  Some of these outrages are now being addressed, and I applaud 
Senators Grassley and Lieberman in their efforts to make Congress 
comply with the laws they pass and stop the current travesty of 
Congress being exempt from many of the laws that we make. It is my 
belief that Congress would pass fewer burdensome laws and regulations 
if they themselves were subject to the same laws. Of course, most 
Members of the Congress would understand this more directly if they had 
been in the private sector, trying to meet the payrolls, meet the 
necessities that any private sector businessman faces up to, to pay the 
taxes and live under the rules and regulations that we mandate and pass 
here.
  I am reminded of a story of the former Senator, George McGovern. 
Senator McGovern was an absolute champion of most liberal causes and he 
spent practically all of his life in public service. When he left 
Government he purchased a very historic inn in Connecticut to run as a 
business. He got a rude awakening as to the impact of all the rules and 
regulations he had helped to pass while in the Senate. They hit him 
right cold between the pocketbooks. He found out very quickly that 
running a business with all of the various OSHA, EPA mandates, and 
equal pay laws, is no simple task. He found out that it is hard work 
that the Federal Government has been making steadily more difficult 
over the past 40 years.
  Former Senator McGovern wrote in a column that if he had been aware 
of the difficulties of running a business while he was in the Senate he 
would have voted differently on many laws, rules and regulations that 
he not only supported but helped to put into place. He simply said that 
he had no idea of the burden that he was thrusting upon the private 
sector.
  Common sense is an uncommon thing in Washington. The people in the 
country, the working taxpayers, know that we have to cut spending. But 
Congress never even considers cutting spending. We simply raise taxes. 
I think the problem is that Congressmen and Senators find life in 
Washington too easy, and they do not want to give it up. This is 
certainly evidenced by the fact that we can all cite innumerable ex-
Members of both branches of the Congress who have never gone home. They 
are right here today. They come to Washington with the full intent of 
doing good things. In many cases that is the sole purpose of running. 
But then, once here, they get plugged into a Washington bureaucratic 
system of ``you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours,'' and ``you vote 
for my boondoggle and I'll vote for yours; you support my bad 
legislation and when yours comes up, I'll support it.''
  In fact, former Budget Director James Miller, using the National 
Taxpayers Union's figures on how much tax money Members of Congress 
vote to spend, found that the longer people stay in Congress the more 
tax money they tend to vote for. The longer Members of Congress stay in 
Washington, the more out of touch they become with the people who sent 
them here. They become closer to lobbyists and the special interest 
groups. The longer they stay here the friendlier they become with those 
people who are out to use the taxpayers' dollars. And, most of all, the 
longer they stay in Washington the faster and faster they spend the 
money of the working people of this country.
  I think it is time to bring common sense to Washington by opening up 
the system, not by closing down the system with a campaign spending 
bill like S. 3, the so-called campaign finance reform bill. The 
spending limits in this campaign spending bill will do one thing, it 
will protect incumbents even more.
  Under this bill once a person is in the Congress it would be 
practically impossible to get them out because they simply would be 
running at the expense of the American taxpayers. The American people 
want term limits. The polls and the votes in the States prove it 
consistently over and over. We have seen it in recent elections. 
Congressional leaders who claim term limits are antidemocratic have so 
far refused to even bring up a constitutional amendment for term 
limits.
  We desperately need a Congress with the courage to cut spending, and 
stop piling debt for our children, grandchildren, and great 
grandchildren to pay off. Term limits may be our last and best hope to 
stop the stealing, the purloining of our children's future. With term 
limits Members of Congress will know that they will only be able to 
serve a limited number of years. The incentive to buy reelection term 
after term by voting for more spending to pay off more groups will be 
gone. We will be more able to vote our true beliefs and our conscience.
  Perhaps the Congress will have the courage to do what is right if we 
can ever pass term limits, and stop spending. It is our only answer. 
More taxes simply mean more spending, and the debt goes on and the 
interest rises. Term limits make common sense. If two terms were good 
enough for George Washington, they should be good enough for anyone in 
the Senate today.
  Mr. President, in January of last year I came to Washington believing 
that our Nation faces grave problems which if not shortly addressed 
will lead us to the brink of an economic catastrophe. I told the people 
of North Carolina that I also believed that those problems could be 
averted by the application of common sense and a little common wisdom. 
But I have found common sense to be very, very rare in Washington. 
After nearly 2 years in office, I continue to believe that our time to 
correct these problems is rapidly running out. But I am more concerned 
than ever that the very leaders who were elected by the people to level 
with them are instead hoping that the day of reckoning will happen on 
someone else's watch, later after we are gone. Leadership has in many 
cases been replaced with glibness.
  In Washington there are many fine orators. Some of them are my 
colleagues in the Senate. But by and large they excel in one thing--
glibness, the triumph of style over substance, the victory of 
appearance over reality. Glibness is not a very high calling. In fact, 
it is a lowly gift.
  As I said, I spent 45 years of my life in the private sector. In that 
time, I never met anyone who had made a career out of being glib, at 
least not until I came to Washington. Certainly I never met anyone who 
was able to succeed in business for any length of time when his sole 
attribute was glibness. In business, you usually survive by hard work, 
attention to detail, and brains. But, Mr. President, the time for 
glibness is past now in the Congress. The time has come for substance 
to triumph over style because when Americans are told the truth they 
will see that we are in what the Old Testament prophet Joel refers to 
as our ``valley of decision.''
  The truth is that by almost every rational and objective measure 
America is a nation in decline. We have seen this decline in many, many 
areas. And as we compare it to other nations that have declined, we see 
a striking similarity. We have placed more burdens on the people who 
work and save and invest than ever before. Taxes have been raised and 
then raised again--some 28 times in the last 30 years. Yet, there is 
not a single Member of the U.S. Senate who will not privately tell you 
that Government spending is out of control; that we must do something 
about it; that our debt has climbed to dangerous levels, and there is 
no end in sight. Yet, we go on spending. Watch any bill that comes to 
the floor with more spending in it and it will overwhelmingly pass.
  We have more crime and more violent criminals than ever before. Drug 
lords rule the streets in large parts of our major cities. They 
dominate the inner cities. The streets are filthy and crumbling. Our 
eroding value system has made life on these streets cheap. We do not 
have to go far to find it. The very city in which we now reside is a 
shining example of hoodlums taking control of vast areas of the city. 
We have more children born out of wedlock than ever before. In fact, 
some 50 percent of those born in most of the major cities of this 
Nation are born out of wedlock today. We have generation after 
generation who have known no life other than welfare checks and have 
known no business people other than prostitutes, drug dealers, cocaine 
dealers, and food stamp hustlers.
  In fact, I spoke not long ago with a 40-year-old person who said she 
had never seen a check in her life of any kind except a Government 
welfare or subsidy check of some description. Those felons who finally 
are actually sentenced to do prison time--are ever actually caught, 
convicted and sentenced. But when one finally is, they demand and get 
air-conditioning, cable television, health care that is better than 
most law-abiding citizens can even hope to afford, and telephones. In 
other words, a luxurious lifestyle. And the problem is the courts have 
demanded that the States provide it, and that it cannot be taken away.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I ask for regular order in the debate under 
postcloture rules. The debate should be directed to the subject under 
discussion.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold, the debate must 
be germane under the germaneness rules.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. If the Senator from Oklahoma will allow me to proceed, 
I will very quickly demonstrate to him how my statement is germane to 
campaign reform, and the bill under consideration. That is why I am 
here, to talk about campaign reform. I would like to proceed and plan 
to proceed. And if he will give me the courtesy of allowing me to 
finish my remarks, he will see how they are related to campaign reform.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, the bill before us is a perfect example 
of incumbents protecting their seats in Congress in the name of 
reducing the influence of money in politics. The majority has created a 
new Federal program designed to manipulate the election system of this 
country. For the first time in this country's history, we are raiding 
the treasury to fund political campaigns without the consent of the 
taxpayers, and that is absolutely wrong.
  In 1992, Bill Clinton campaigned on the promise to end welfare as we 
know it. What voters did not know is that he and his majority party 
intended to create an entirely new class of welfare recipients, a new 
class of entitlements for politicians to manipulate to their own 
partisan advantage.
  The campaign finance bill currently before the Senate will mean $1 
billion of tax-paid welfare for politicians. That is $1 billion--that 
is $1 billion--of tax dollars, tax money, going straight to politicians 
to get in office, and to stay in office. I believe the last thing the 
American public wants is to give politicians money to spend on 
themselves. We are wasting enough of the taxpayers' money on every 
other possible program, including welfare, which desperately needs 
reform, and now this bill would create a special welfare program for 
the politicians themselves.
  Last year's budget battle sent a clear message to the Congress. The 
American people want deficit reduction, and they want to cut wasteful 
Government spending. I cannot think of any greater waste of the 
taxpayers' money than politicians spending it to get reelected.
  Mr. President, some have said this bill will cost the taxpayers $1 
billion every election cycle. If it cost $1 billion the first election 
cycle, you can believe that for every election cycle thereafter it will 
increase substantially. We all know that Government estimates are 
inevitably low. Even the Congressional Budget Office said, and I quote: 
``The cost of providing benefits under the system that is proposed is 
highly uncertain.'' The Budget Office calls it ``benefits.'' I call it 
``welfare.''
  Mr. President, it is uncertain because you cannot even tell how many 
candidates would qualify for political welfare under the new system. 
One likely outcome would be radical, third-party candidates coming out 
of the woodwork for the sole reason that they would receive political 
welfare benefits. In fact, I would suspect you would have a lot of 
people running that are receiving welfare under the current plan, and 
they could add political welfare benefits to that which they already 
have. We would have food stamps for politicians. Multiply candidates 
like Lyndon LaRouche, and Lenora Fulani by 535 congressional races, and 
you have a taxpayer's nightmare. If you put all of the oddballs, and 
all of the people that would come out of the woodwork to run, there 
would be polticial chaos all at the taxpayer's expense.
  The New Alliance Party--whatever that is--has received over $3.5 
million in matching funds as a candidate in the last three Presidential 
campaigns. And most people did not even know it existed. I daresay the 
average citizen has never heard of the New Alliance Party and could 
give you no idea of what it is. But yet, we have taken $3.5 million of 
taxpayer money and shuffled it into a worthless political 
organization. This woman is so far left she could not even get matching 
funds in Eastern Europe. LaRouche--a convicted felon--has collected $2 
million as a Presidential candidate since 1976. Recently paroled, he 
received another $568,435 in matching funds for the 1992 campaign. He 
ran his campaign from prison with tax dollars--over a half a million of 
them. And he has announced his intention to carry his supporters on a 
rocket ship, to carry his supporters on a rocket ship, and establish a 
new society on the Moon. Now, this would not be a bad idea if he were 
doing it with his own money. But Mr. LaRouche has no right to be 
spending the taxpayers' money for anything. He is a lunatic, literally, 
and yet we are giving him taxpayers' money to, so-call, run for 
President.

  That is what happens when the Democratic majority sets up run-amok 
Government welfare entitlements. We remove any and all common sense 
from the system. Common sense says you cannot give millions of dollars 
to crazy people to run for President. And yet that is exactly what this 
bill does. It gives them not only the authority to run for President 
but to run for Congress. There is no end to the ones that would be 
running. And the campaign spending bill multiplies the Presidential 
system thousands of times. More and more congressional candidates will 
pour out of the woodwork.
  Mr. President, taxpayers do not want to pay for Lenora Fulani to 
further her lunatic agenda if she chooses to run for Congress under 
this proposal.
  Taxpayers do not want to pay for any more fringe candidates. 
Taxpayers do not want their tax dollars to be furthering anyone's 
political career or personal agenda.
  It is time we further the taxpayers' agenda, those people who have 
been responsible for paying the bills and making the country work. We 
can start by throwing the taxpayer-funded congressional campaign 
proposals on the junk heap of history.
  Pure and simple, this law means welfare for politicians, money and 
privileges that normal citizens cannot have but people with connections 
to run for office will get for free. To get this money, all you have to 
do is agree to the arbitrary spending limits, and then you are entitled 
to take a dive into the public purse and come up with the taxpayers' 
dollars.
  Mr. President, there is absolutely no way to tell just how much this 
new Government welfare program is going to cost. No one can reliably 
predict how many candidates there will be in 1996 or 1998 or any time 
into the future.
  There were 1,200 more congressional candidates in 1992 than in 1990--
a huge jump that nobody had anticipated happening. Can you in your 
wildest imagination imagine how many new candidates would have been 
more than happy to go to the public dole and accept hundreds of 
thousands of tax dollars if this ridiculous legislation we are talking 
about this morning were on the books? Hundreds or even thousands of 
additional candidates would have run as independent or third-party 
candidates, or not only third-party candidates but fourth- and fifth-
party candidates. There would be no end to the people, so-called, 
running for office.
  Let us talk for a minute about what all this tax money is going to 
buy. One entitlement granted politicians is something called voter 
communication vouchers. That is nothing more than a fancy word for food 
stamps for politicians. The candidates would take them down to the 
local television station or post office and redeem them, the vouchers 
for ads or postage. Can you imagine anything more ridiculous than the 
Federal Government providing a politician, no matter how wild or far 
out, a voucher, and he could go down and have ads run or use it for 
postage? Maybe if we let the Democrats have their way, the food stamp 
politicians could pick up a six-pack, a pack of cigarettes and a bag of 
chips on the way just like the rest of the food stamp crowd. I think 
the public has long since been fed up with paying for Congressional 
franked mail much less pay for the candidates' free political mail.
  In addition, the American taxpayer is being made to pay for political 
television advertising. Political television advertising the American 
taxpayers are being asked to pay for.
  Not only will they have to look at it but now we are asking them to 
pay for it. In fact, the bill mandates that television stations just 
give away time in the last 60 days of a campaign. Now, when I ran, we 
paid dearly for the television time we had in any day of the campaign.
  Mr. President, what is it that makes the Congress so arrogant to 
think they are entitled to anything of value in the private sector? To 
me, forcing television stations to give away free time is like forcing 
sign shops to print free campaign signs. In fact, it is the same thing. 
Or to force the Government to hire people to nail up your signs. Or for 
that matter, to force a tailor to make you a suit to campaign in. It is 
nothing more than putting the total cost of running a campaign on the 
backs of the taxpayers.
  Another provision of the bill gives out taxpayers' money to 
politicians when they are challenged by someone outside of the campaign 
who is making a so-called independent expenditure. Clearly, Mr. 
President, the Democrat majority must fear people speaking up against 
their leaders.
  Right now, out in Washington State, effective ads are being run 
against the Speaker of the House. The ads challenge the Speaker's view 
that health care is best dispensed by big Government. I think we have 
clearly demonstrated that the American people do not think health care 
is best dispensed by big Government.
  That is the very reason that there will not be a health care bill 
come out of this Congress during this session. Under the campaign 
spending bill, the Speaker would get to answer the ads at taxpayers' 
expense. As it is, he must at least answer them now, if he wishes to 
answer them and if he can answer them, at his own expense, or at least 
at the expense of those people who support him.
  Mr. President, there are a lot of examples of welfare for politicians 
in the bill, but the final one I will mention is particularly bad. The 
bill says that if a politician is taking taxpayers' money to fund his 
political ambitions, and the opponent raises more than he does, then 
the politician gets another infusion of taxpayers' money to match the 
challenger.
  Now, I am going through that again. That is the worst part. The bill 
says that if a politician is taking taxpayers' money to fund his 
political ambition, and his opponent happens to have worked, been 
successful, or have money or more support and raises more than he does 
because more people believe in what he is doing, then the politician 
that is on political welfare gets another infusion of the taxpayers' 
money to, so-call, level the field to meet the challenger. Clearly, the 
incentive is to keep challengers from spending their money and making 
their views known.
  That bothers me, Mr. President, and it should bother any private 
American citizen who wants to challenge the status quo and the 
entrenched Washington political system. Under this bill, every dollar 
given by citizens above the arbitrary amount chosen by the majority 
will be matched by the Government with taxpayers' money. Nothing could 
be more wrong. In other words, we are saying that if a person has been 
successful in business and has decided to run for public office, then 
we will come forth with whatever of the taxpayers' money it takes to 
keep him on an equal footing with those who are using their own money.
  Mr. President, as I have said, I came from the private sector, and it 
is a rare background in this body. But if I have learned anything in 45 
years in business, it is that Government money corrupts whatever it 
touches. And I repeat that. Government money corrupts whatever it 
touches.
  Dependence on Government welfare has destroyed millions of American 
families. It has robbed them of personal responsibility. It has eroded 
their integrity. It has destroyed their moral fiber. Federal dollars 
have ruined a once great system of public education. The Federal 
Government got into the education business in the early 1970's, and we 
have seen a constant decline in the quality of education in this 
country since the early 1970's. It has been brought about by Federal 
money. We have paid for the problem. Government money has fueled a 
steady increase in crime.
  If you will look at the amount of money at an exact tracking and 
parallel of the money that we have put into welfare programs and the 
rate of crime in this country, they track exactly as they move upward. 
The more money we have put into social programs, we have seen a 
corresponding increase in crime.
  Congress has manipulated and distorted the free market in virtually 
every industry in which it directs taxpayers' dollars. It has slowly 
eroded quality health care, and now we are threatened to completely 
destroy it.
  In so many ways, the Federal dollar has taken away private decision, 
has distorted the private decisionmaking process and made the recipient 
dependent on the politicians of today.
  Whether this was a planned policy or not, it has happened, and today 
so many people in office cater to and direct their decisions to more 
Federal spending, more welfare, and to those people dependent upon the 
taxpayers dollars. They give money to campaigns, and they become 
involved in the process to further erode the integrity of the Federal 
Government.
  I do not believe a Government takeover of the Federal election system 
is likely to improve it or offer Americans a more clear opportunity to 
express their political beliefs. In fact, I am certain that Government-
funded elections are going to mean Government-chosen candidates, and 
that clearly is wrong.
  You do not want to work? Do not worry, you do not have to. We have 
public housing, food stamps and a welfare check waiting for you.
  You are not married and want to have children you cannot afford? Do 
not worry, we will pay you to have as many as you would like. Most 
people have to wait and plan for more children, but under the welfare 
system we have set up today, you do not have to do that.
  You do not want to name the father so he can be made to live up to 
his responsibility? Do not worry about that either, the taxpayers will 
pick up the tab, the father can walk free.
  You want to live an unhealthy lifestyle or engage in unsafe personal 
practices? No worry. Make as many bad choices as you like, destroy your 
health, your body, your ability to function. The Government will come 
up with a new health care plan to take care of you.
  We do not have personal responsibility anymore. For every possible 
malady that can befall an individual, there is a Government program to 
take care of it. We have with taxpayers' dollars encouraged people to 
be irresponsible. It all sounds so seductively good, but the result has 
been Government spending and debt that has grown so staggeringly large 
that its dead weight has pulled the Nation into a downward spiral, both 
our moral fiber and our fiscal responsibility.
  If a brave business person dares to try to succeed despite the heavy 
burden of taxation and regulation, he or she can expect to run squarely 
into a wall of civil rights, gay rights, environmental rights, and 
labor union rights that have just about righted our country out of 
business. It is impossible to believe the mountains of rules and 
regulations that are thrust upon the average private businessman today. 
The paperwork itself is overburdensome, and yet the rights of various 
groups and fringe groups go on and on and we pass more laws to protect 
the fringe and nothing for the center that makes a country function.
  Likewise, under the campaign finance reform bill, you will have the 
taxpayers put up the money for your campaign for office. You do not 
need any personal responsibility. The decision to run for office would 
then be an easy one to make because none of your funds would be used. 
You simply would be using OP money, and that is other people's. The 
taxpayers will pay the bill under the campaign finance reform 
legislation before us now, and the taxpayers should not be paying for 
anybody's campaign.
  Our wealthy citizens go to sleep at night behind well-armed 
compounds. Our middle class activates alarm systems before going to 
bed. Our poor citizens are reduced to putting their children to sleep 
on the floor so they do not get killed by bullets flying through public 
housing projects. What started out as a series of Government programs 
to uplift people has had precisely the opposite effect. Like an 
alcoholic who begins to comprehend the devastation his addiction has 
wrought, America is grimly realizing that the easy way out really is 
not easy nor is it out. It continues to dig us in deeper.
  Continuing on the same path only guarantees a bleaker future. Our 
Government has made vast, unfunded promises for the future. The 
promises that it made will have to be paid for by generations yet 
unborn and going into infinity if we do not stop the spending.
  Bill Clinton's own budget calculates that these promises for future 
Social Security benefits, Medicare payments, Federal pension benefits, 
and others, will grow increasingly expensive as baby boomers reach 
retirement age. Unless changes are made, it calculates that the 
generation of Americans born today will face a lifetime tax rate of 82 
percent. Such ruinous tax rates will grind the country to a halt and, 
obviously, cannot be sustained. Yet, the culture of society rather than 
personal responsibility has left us wholly unprepared for the dramatic 
cuts in these unfunded promises that must be made in order to keep the 
country running.
  According to a Merrill Lynch study, even if somehow all of the 
Government's promises to baby boomers are kept and taxes miraculously 
do not rise, our Nation's low saving rate will leave 46 million baby 
boomers with retirement living standards that are lower than those 
enjoyed by today's average 65-year-old.
  In fact, for the first time in our Nation, it has become glaringly 
evident that our children can expect a lower standard of living than 
that which we enjoyed and that their children can expect an even lower 
one. These two chilling sets of facts converge to guarantee that 
Americans will face a financial crisis. We have a limited amount of 
time to turn around this Nation. America has entered its valley of 
decision.
  Mr. President, the central problem facing America today is runaway 
Government spending and the rising Federal debt that ultimately 
threatens to swallow and destroy all of us.
  I have been very clear in my beliefs. I think Government is too big, 
it spends too much. I ran for the Senate with this as a sole theme. 
Congress should concentrate on three things and should devote its time 
to three things: Cut spending, cut spending and cut spending.
  As a businessman, I know that Government does not create wealth. 
Government simply redistributes it, and it redistributes it, in many 
cases, from those who worked it out to those who refused to work. 
Government transfers jobs from the private sector to the Government 
payroll.
  Mr. President, the Federal Government is like a family with a $30,000 
a year income that is running up charge card bills that they cannot 
hope to pay. Sessions of Congress are like a family meeting where 
members of the family talk about changing their raise. What it really 
means is instead of continuing to charge $1,500 a month, as a session 
of Congress or as in a family meeting, instead of adding $1,500 a month 
to their credit cards with great gnashing of teeth, we agree that we 
are going to only add $1,400 a month charges to our credit cards, and 
then we come with a so-called tax increase budget deficit reduction and 
we decide to delay that for 4 years before we start it. We talk about 
deficit reduction and, yet, during the term of President Clinton's 4 
years in office, we will see close to a trillion dollars added to the 
national debt.
  Mr. President, where will this lead us? If you want to see where this 
philosophy of tax and spend has been taken to the extreme, you need go 
no further than right where we are this morning, and that is the 
District of Columbia. There is no better example of high taxes, high 
government spending and more regulations than Washington, DC. The 
Nation's Capital has the highest local tax of any city in America. It 
also has the highest Federal spending per capita in the Nation. It has 
the toughest gun control laws and the highest crime rate. It has a 
government which has made business the whipping boy for every perceived 
inequality that exists.
  And what is the result? Washington has the highest murder rate in 
America. Its streets are filthy and in disrepair. This is the Capital 
of the world's richest Nation. Its public housing complexes are junk 
and crime-ridden at best. Many of them look like bombed-out war zones. 
Law-abiding citizens cannot own a firearm of any kind, but drug lords 
rule over large parts of the District with submachineguns.
  Marion Barry, who was imprisoned for graft and illegal drug use, is 
on the city council and it will appear on the verge of becoming mayor 
again. He is demanding that the disaster over which he presides be 
given two seats in the U.S. Senate. Yet, Mr. President, the Clinton 
administration comes before Congress and the American people and says 
the only problem with the Washington, DC's of the world is that 
Government needs more taxes and more spending to fuel more of the 
wealth of the country into these cities.
  The taxers and spenders are destroying America. And not only do they 
not take responsibility for the damage they have done, they want more 
money so they can do it faster.
  I have spoken at great length tonight about the role of Government 
and its relationship with the business community. I would like to speak 
now to the business community, about their role in financing campaigns. 
It used to be that business people stayed out of politics. But the time 
has long since passed where they can continue to do that. Congress is 
writing the rules, but most of the people writing the rules have never 
played the game. People, and especially business people, need to get 
active in political campaigns. That is the way campaigns should be 
financed.
  We do not need public financing. It is not fair to the working people 
of this country. It is not fair to the business people of this country. 
Nor can we afford it. I simply do not see how those of us in the Senate 
can even be debating this so-called campaign finance bill. When we are 
going into debt at the rate of some $700 million-plus dollars a day, 
how can we even be discussing spending $1 billion more to publicly 
finance campaigns when the working taxpayers of this country are 
already pushed to their wit's and money's end? These are people who 
work in all sorts of jobs, who get up at 3 in the morning to work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator he has 
spoken for 1 hour. Under the rule he has no more time.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from 
Florida.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Florida 
[Mr. Mack].
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from North Carolina 
yielding to me. I wonder if, before he leaves the floor, he would 
engage in a discussion for a moment?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Yes, I would.
  Mr. MACK. I just got to the Senate floor about 15 minutes ago. I may 
find myself in a position, from time to time, talking about issues that 
I think are related to the overall discussion about campaign finance 
reform and what it will do to free speech in our country. As I was 
chatting with some who have been here for several hours, I understand 
we have a thought policeman, or a speech policeman who shows up from 
time to time on the floor of the Senate. Maybe the Senator from North 
Carolina was one of those who experienced that. Apparently he did not 
like what my colleague was saying or felt what the Senator was saying 
was apparently off the subject, from their point of view? Did that 
happen?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Oh, yes, this happens somewhat regularly. It has been 
going on all night. But the truth of it is when you are talking about 
cutting any sort of taxpayer spending it is germane to what we are 
talking about here. And campaign finance reform is simply another waste 
of the taxpayers' money. But there are certain elements in the Senate, 
when you start talking about cutting spending, who always get upset.
  Mr. MACK. Could the Senator tell me what areas was he trying to make 
a point about? I did hear a moment ago the Senator was talking about 
Washington, DC. I assume, again, someone might come out and say you 
should not be talking about what happens here in Washington, DC, this 
is a debate about campaign finance reform?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. What I was doing was comparing finance reform to 
welfare in general. I am saying finance reform, campaign reform, is 
nothing more than welfare for politicians. We would be given vouchers 
which would be comparable to food stamps, with which we could go to the 
local newspaper, the local television station, and demand they run our 
ads. We could take them to the post office. We could get stamps for 
them. It simply would be welfare for politicians, to sustain the status 
quo and guarantee that a challenger would have no possibility against 
an incumbent.
  What I was saying was that it would bring fringe benefits. We had 
over 1,200 more congressional candidates in the last race than we had 
the previous 2 years. Can you imagine if we give free money, free ads, 
how many we would have the next time? It would be an infinite amount, 
and the cost of it, we have no idea. It is impossible to conceive how 
much money we would be talking about. No estimate has even been given.
  Mr. MACK. I guess what struck me--again, maybe I will experience this 
a little bit later on so I can draw on my own personal conclusion--but 
I thought it was rather interesting that when we are out here, I assume 
others made the point the campaign finance reform proposals are an 
infringement on our free speech rights. That, as you were engaged in 
expressing your opinions, from time to time the doors would open and 
someone could come out and say you are really talking about the wrong 
thing. I guess what I am saying is I can visualize in my mind, as we 
move into the campaigns in 1996, should this pass and become effective 
in 1996, we would have just literally thousands of thought police 
around the country who would come charging in, in the middle of 
campaigns, and say, ``Wait a minute, you were speaking about things you 
cannot speak about in this campaign.''
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I would think they would have that right to go tell 
you that because, see, you would be running on their money. The man who 
controls the leash says where the dog goes.
  Mr. MACK. I believe I have heard the Senator use that phrase before.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. If the Federal Government is going to give you the 
money to run on, then I certainly think they are entitled to have 
thought police to come tell you what you can say in your campaign and 
where you can say it and who can say it. If you pay the piper, then he 
sings your song. So I think if the Federal Government is going to put 
up the money for you to run for office, they should have the right to 
say what you can put on the campaign ad.
  Mr. MACK. This discussion has added, in my mind, anyway, an 
additional cost I doubt anyone has considered and I have not seen 
anything to date that would indicate what the cost would be to police. 
I assume there is a major expansion, then, for the FEC to be able to 
analyze the expenditures on the part of individual candidates 
throughout that campaign making the determination about whether they 
are getting close to the limit, what things should be included in the 
expenditures.
  Some candidates will claim the expenditures they made were in fact 
expenditures on the part of the party or by the party, and should be 
included in their total expenditure. So in addition to having somebody 
who is going to be trying to determine whether you spoke too much, 
there are those who are going to have to make a determination about who 
funded how much you had to say and whether that fits into your limit or 
it fits into somebody else's limit. So we are going to have a larger 
bureaucracy, then, that has to be involved to make a determination 
since you said a minute ago, since I am going to be funding your 
campaign I have a right to determine how much you speak, I am going to 
have to have the resources to determine whether you are complying with 
the law.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. The nice thing about this bill is it is a typical 
free-spending Government bill. We are not worried about what it is 
going to cost because the taxpayers are going to foot the bill 
ultimately--your children, your grandchildren, your great grandchildren 
and generations yet unborn are going to pay for it. So why worry about 
the cost of it? Simply put it on the books because it sounds good and 
it will keep you in office and get you reelected. And the effect upon 
the American taxpayer really does not matter.
  But going back, too, you are paying for your ads when you are running 
for reelection and you or your campaign staff determine what they say 
because it is your money or your supporters' money.
  I certainly think if the Federal Government, going back, if they are 
going to pay for these ads, pay for your signs being painted, they have 
a perfect right to say what you put on the sign.
  Mr. MACK. So you think it is a reasonable conclusion to come to, that 
if a law like this is passed, which places a limit on how much you can 
speak, it is reasonable to conclude that at some point in time someone 
may try to determine what it is you have to say?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Absolutely. Can you think of a Government program in 
which we have expended tremendous amounts of the taxpayers' money--
education, are they not determining what books you could read? What the 
schools have to teach? Who can teach it and to whom they will teach it 
and where it will be taught?
  Tell me a Government program, a Federal program that is being paid 
for by Federal tax dollars that they do not direct and totally control.
  Mr. MACK. Let me give the Senator another example which just came to 
mind as we have been engaged in this little discussion. My colleague 
may be aware that HUD has been involved in the pursuit of lawsuits 
against individuals living in their neighborhoods who are being told a 
certain kind of project is going to be built in their community and 
they have voiced some concerns about whether an old building should be 
converted into a housing project for the homeless or for those who were 
recovering from drug addiction, those who are going to be trained how 
to overcome the drug addiction. It really is kind of startling, and I 
put it in this context because some people might be thinking we are 
kind of pressing the envelope here, that because we said there would be 
a limit on spending, someday somebody may try to limit what you have to 
say or limit what you say.
  This group of people, relatively small, mom and pop type operations, 
started voicing these concerns about having HUD come in and build this 
particular project right in their community, raising the point, for 
example, did it make sense to remodel a facility for those addicted by 
alcohol, to rebuild that place a block or so away or right next-door to 
a liquor store? That seems a reasonable concern to raise, let alone 
what it might do to your community, to the value of your property. It 
seems people ought to have the right to express that.
  Do you know they have been threatened with suits, saying that they 
are violating Federal law? I think that is a perfect example of how 
Government gets out of control and says: Oh, no, the intention is not 
that at all. But in the process they have chilled public speech. They 
have chilled the freedom of speech in this country, and that is the 
kind of thing that really worries me about this type of legislation.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. People have been threatened with indictment, as you 
say, because they simply protested the building of what they consider 
undesirable types of facilities in their community. I think they have a 
perfect right to protest. They have worked hard all their lives to 
improve their lot in life. They saved. They have build houses, bought 
property in what they hoped would be a better section of town removed 
from that. And now I hear at HUD meetings that they want to bring these 
housing projects--which I just went through; unfortunately they do have 
a higher rate of crime and drug use in them--and they want to bring 
this throughout all middle class neighborhoods in this country. I asked 
at a meeting and they said the reason was, not that it would reduce 
crime--not by spreading these projects into the middle class 
neighborhoods, not in any hope there would be less crime--but everybody 
would get some of it. We would spread it around.
  Mr. MACK. Again, I thought it was, to me anyway, it struck me as kind 
of ironic to be over here talking about a piece of legislation to 
control how much, how long you can speak in public campaigns, political 
campaigns.
  In the process of doing that, we have people who come through the 
doors who are in essence saying to you that you are speaking about the 
wrong thing. I think it is an excellent point to make. Maybe what we 
ought to do is just keep trying to speak about things we want to speak 
about and keep letting them come to the floor and say that you are 
talking about something you are not supposed to be talking about to 
make the point that in fact that is what they want to do, having 
thousands of people scattered around the country watching each 
individual campaign and at some point indicating that, ``You have 
spoken too much, Mr. or Mrs. Candidate, and it is time for you to sit 
down.'' I just think that is fundamentally wrong.
  I think when the American people understand what we are really 
talking about here is not only that they will be funding the political 
campaigns of politicians but, because of their funding, some Government 
entity will be able to tell a particular candidate that they talk too 
much. That again is fundamentally wrong.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. This is a fundamental fact of life when someone puts 
up the money. When you accept the money, then where the money flows 
from will direct what is said. When the Federal Government starts 
financing campaigns and paying for it, if they pay for the billboard, 
they are going to say what goes on it. That is an inevitable happening. 
It for sure will happen if we pass this ridiculous legislation that we 
are sitting here at quarter after 3 in the morning talking about.
  Mr. MACK. The last point I will make, then I will let my dear friend 
and colleague leave the floor of the Senate, one of the things that I 
will be reading into the Record a little bit later on is a piece by 
George Will on this subject about they say we talk too much. I am sure 
that there are times when there are conclusions drawn to the fact that 
we talk too much. I am sure those who are with us here tonight, not out 
of desire but out of requirement, probably feel that is the case right 
at this moment.
  But one of the points that George Will makes in his article is that 
it is interesting during this debate that has been going on actually 
for several years now--it has its moments where it has drawn a fair 
amount of attention and then goes underground for months--is that no 
one in the press, or I should say very few of the journalists in 
America have raised serious concerns about the limit of free speech.
  Normally, you would see them out there at every corner defending the 
right of free speech. So you have to ask yourself the question. Why are 
they so quiet on this issue? I mean when they defend--and thank God 
they do--there is probably nothing more fundamental to a free society 
and democracy than free speech. Thank God the press is there to keep an 
eye on the freedom of speech.
  But yet on this issue, when there is no question that this is 
designed to limit an individual's ability to speak, the media in this 
country is basically silent. You have to ask yourself the question why? 
I say to my colleague that the reason they are silent is because, if we 
are limited in our speech but they are unlimited in the amount of their 
speech, who do you think wins the debate?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. The press wins the debate. And, if this bill were in 
any way designed to limit the freedom of speech of the press, they 
would be up in arms. But since it limits the right of freedom of speech 
of the people, they simply sit quietly by and hope that it passes 
because if one group does not speak, then it gives more authority to 
those that do speak, that is, the press.
  Mr. MACK. Again, I thank my colleague for indulging me in this kind 
of discussion. But I was really struck by what has occurred here 
earlier this evening, that there are those who want to control during 
the debate on free speech what it is my colleague is speaking about. I 
thank him for yielding me time and involving me in this discussion.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank the Senator from Florida. The Senator from 
Florida, I think, is going to be a little luckier than some of us were 
earlier this year in that I think the speech monitor has maybe gone to 
bed, and you will be free to speak. But he will be back early in the 
morning.
  Mr. MACK. Maybe we can--if we have an opportunity to offer an 
amendment, we could have several people on our side of this issue who 
would be funded by Government to be monitors of those who were policing 
thought and speech so that we will know when they are not paying 
attention to it, and we can veer off in some direction that we are 
interested in.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I think the Senator is safe now.
  Mr. MACK. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, it is no wonder that the American people are cynical 
about Government. They see Government spending with wild abandon, 
wasting tax dollars and piling debt with no end in sight. They see 
Government regulating more and more aspects of their employers' 
businesses, threatening millions of jobs. They see Government 
interfering with their lives and property and basic constitutional 
freedoms. They are also cynical because politicians promise one thing 
and deliver another. They see politicians who promise honey and deliver 
vinegar. Most recently--let me say to my colleague that it is good to 
see him.
  Mr. BOREN. It is good to see you.
  Mr. MACK. If my colleague from North Carolina has not left the floor, 
I would say his earlier observation was probably incorrect.
  Most recently they have seen the President and Democrats in Congress 
promise a new health care system that would provide health security for 
everyone. But when Americans looked closely, they saw a plan that would 
have taken away their right to choose which health care they want and 
place it in the hands of Government bureaucrats. They saw a plan which 
would have destroyed health care quality in this country and rationed 
health care. No wonder Americans have no confidence in their 
Government.
  Now the Democrats want to hoodwink the American people again. They 
want to reform the financing of campaigns. But what they really are 
trying to do is provide an entitlement for politicians. They want to 
guarantee that politicians can soak taxpayers before they get elected 
as well as after they are elected. The proponents of the Senate- and 
House-passed bills base their arguments almost entirely on a contention 
that there is too much campaign spending. The presumption is that the 
act of a campaign spending money is and of itself a bad thing.
  Mr. President, that premise is wrong. There is nothing inherently 
bad, evil or corrupting about a campaign spending money. The act of 
writing a check is not corrupting. The problem in campaign finance is 
not where the money goes. In fact, the money goes primarily to 
communicate with the voters.
  The proponents of campaign finance reform argue that there is a 
conflict between campaign funds and ideas. They say that if you limit 
funds, then debates over ideas will emerge. I believe the opposite will 
happen, however. It takes money to communicate ideas. It takes money to 
tell potential voters what candidates believe in. This means that if 
campaign spending is limited, if the ability to communicate with voters 
is restricted, then free speech is effectively abridged. The result 
will be to limit debate over ideas and make the job of defeating 
incumbents even more difficult.
  The fact is we spend far more on advertising hamburgers in this 
country than on elections. Yet there is a notion put forward by the 
press and self-anointed good-government groups that we are spending too 
much. Implicit in their position is the assumption that spending is 
somehow corrupt.
  So we have for some years now been engaged in a misguided drive for 
campaign spending limits. Congressional campaign spending skyrocketed 
in 1992, and so did voter turnout and congressional turnover, factors 
most observers considered to be positive.
  Most nonpartisan scholars and Republicans are opposed to spending 
limits. There are a number of reasons for their position. The facts are 
that spending limits: First, as we talked earlier, limit speech; 
second, they limit political participation and competition; and, third, 
they do not in fact limit special interest or total spending.
  As a matter of fact, if you limit spending in one specific area, you 
are going to see the spending explode in another. It is natural for 
Americans to be involved in the debate about where their country is 
going. If you tell them they cannot play in this arena, they are going 
to construct and play in another arena.
  Because spending limits help incumbents and hurt challengers, the GOP 
has some practical reasons for opposing spending limits. However, there 
are plenty of legitimate public policy concerns as well.
  Republicans, scholars and the American Civil Liberties Union share 
the belief that spending limits are a bad public policy because they 
limit speech and participation in the political process; spending 
limits are undemocratic, involuntary or coerced; spending limits are 
also unconstitutional because they are de facto limits on free speech.
  The big roadblock to limiting campaign spending is in the first 
amendment, which protects political speech, and the Supreme Court has 
determined that campaign spending which is primarily for the purpose of 
communication is analogous to speech. The other roadblock to limiting 
campaign spending is the reality that all Americans have a vested 
interest in the electoral process and a 200-year-old tradition of 
participating in it.
  To the dismay of some who would like to squeeze individuals out of 
the process, citizens are determined that they will be involved beyond 
just voting. Some citizens will volunteer on phone banks. Some will 
hand out letters. Others will go door to door. And still other citizens 
who are too busy to do these other things will make small, fully 
disclosed contributions to candidates they support to help pay for all 
these other activities, and there is nothing wrong with that. Mr. 
President, there is nothing wrong with private citizens supporting 
candidates by contributing their hard-earned dollars in accordance with 
the law in publicly disclosed and limited amounts.
  Again, let me just take a moment to make another personal 
observation.
  I have now been involved in politics for 12 years. I can remember 
when I began, in 1982. One of the first things I had to do to become a 
credible candidate, frankly, was to be able to raise a sufficient 
amount of money for people to take me seriously. I mean I had never 
been involved in politics. I left the banking business. I went to the 
board one morning and said, ``I am resigning. I am going to resign my 
position as president of the bank. I am going to resign my membership 
on the board of directors. And I am going to go run for political 
office.'' I must say to you that their response that morning was one of 
somewhat disbelief and a feeling that I had lost my mind.
  There are moments like maybe tonight at 3:30 when I think maybe they 
might have been right. But when I left that job, I knew that in order 
for me to be able to make a point that I was a valid candidate, a 
candidate capable of delivering a message to the people, that I had to 
have sufficient resources to get my message out. Anybody who has 
attempted to raise money for any reason knows how easy it is for 
someone to say ''no.''
  The most significant campaign spending limits are the people that we 
go to say we need financial assistance to run the campaign. The easiest 
way to control is for an individual to say, ``I do not want to help 
finance your campaign.'' They do not have to be that direct. Most of 
them can give a reason other than that as to why they do not support 
your candidacy.
  But people generally do not give to campaigns of challengers unless 
they believe that that challenger is in a reasonable position to 
articulate views that they support and to get into this program where 
candidates are really going to base their decision about whether they 
are going to run or not on the issue of whether or not they are going 
to get public financing I think is just fundamentally wrong.
  In fact, I remember making the comment after my first campaign was 
over, I have never seen any single requirement in the life that I have 
lived that tested me more than the campaign I ran in 1982. Every single 
aspect of who we are as individuals is tested through a campaign, and 
one of the most difficult in those early stages is to raise money.
  The reason I believe that individuals can raise money as a challenger 
is because they can convince the people they are talking with that they 
are dedicated to ideas and principles and a philosophy that the person 
you are asking to support the campaign associates themselves with.
  That is a significant challenge. And what we are going to start to do 
by eliminating the requirement and the necessity to sell yourself to be 
able to raise that money, and selling not in the sense of I have just 
given myself away but selling yourself in the sense that what you are 
talking about is something you believe in, and this idea that somehow 
or another we are going to make American politics more pure because we 
are now going to give the money to candidates through the Government is 
just fundamentally wrong.
  A spending limit is a two-pronged restriction on speech. First, it 
restricts the total amount of speech available to the candidate, by 
cutting what the candidates can spend on communication. And, second, it 
restricts the total number of citizens who can participate in the 
process of making a donation, which really raises another point.
  How many times have you heard people say, ``Why aren't more people 
involved in this process? Why aren't more people willing to get 
involved in elections? Why aren't more people out here volunteering 
time?''
  We are going to make it even more difficult for them as a result. We 
are going to send that message that the way you can participate is by 
sending your money to the Federal Government. So the next attitude that 
is going to develop in the country is, well, I do not need to do 
anything in political campaigns. After all, I pay taxes. And since I 
pay taxes, that is my method of being involved. It is just one more 
message to the American people you do not need to do it; just let 
Government do it for you. And again I think that that is just wrong.
  Spending limits cut speech out of the process and cut people out of 
the process as well. That is why the Supreme Court in the Buckley 
versus Valeo decision said that spending limits by themselves were 
unconstitutional. The Court rightly said that the Congress cannot force 
candidates to spend or to speak a set amount. However, the Court said 
it is constitutional for the Government to entice candidates--I like 
the words entice candidates in this sentence--through generous 
subsidies into accepting spending limits.
  That is why we have the current Presidential system where in return 
for complying with spending limits candidates receive generous 
subsidies courtesy of the taxpayers.
  Mr. President, this entire campaign financing debate really is not 
about campaign spending. This debate is about the first amendment. It 
is about speech. It is about who will be allowed to speak in the 
electoral process and how much. The majority's proposal seeks to divy 
out speech in carefully restricted amounts to preserve their dominance 
in Government. A witness for the Justice Department testified before 
the Senate Rules Committee in 1991 as to what is really at stake in 
this debate, and I hope my colleagues would reflect on what he said. 
And I quote:

       It should never be forgotten that by protecting robust 
     debate and broad criticism of competing candidates the first 
     amendment was the most important electoral reform ever 
     enacted.

  Mr. President, the first amendment of the Constitution was, indeed, 
the most important electoral reform ever enacted. It guarantees that 
our democracy will forever be vibrant. It assures the American people 
that when they are unhappy with Government they have the right to speak 
and to get active in the electoral process so that they can change 
things. It assures that the press can honestly report on what is 
happening.
  Mr. President, the first amendment of the Constitution guarantees 
that candidates can speak as much as they want. And it is pretty clear 
to me if you put spending limits in place, you have, in fact, limited 
how much a candidate can say. It guarantees--we are talking about the 
first amendment--it guarantees that candidates can spend as much as 
they want so that they can communicate as much as they want to voters. 
It guarantees that if Congress enacts a law that will effectively force 
candidates to limit their ability to communicate with the electorate, 
it will be struck down by the courts as an unconstitutional 
infringement of the freedom of speech.
  Mr. President, opposition to spending limits is not just based on 
constitutional rights. Five elections and nearly three-quarters of a 
billion tax dollars later, the Presidential system of spending limits, 
which the Court has ruled is constitutional, is a disaster. The 
Presidential system propped up by the now $3 checkoff on Federal income 
tax forms has limited neither spending limits nor special interests.
  I repeat, the Presidential system of spending limits which many would 
like to replicate for congressional elections does not limit either 
total campaign spending or special interest influence. Scholars know 
it. The participants know it. And the taxpayers know it. That is why 
fewer than one in five taxpayers now check off on their tax forms to 
designate $3 for taxes they already owe to the Presidential election 
campaign fund. Until the President's budget last tripled it, the 
checkoff was merely a dollar. But even the dollar checkoff rate had 
declined one-third from its high of 29 percent in the late 1970's. 
Consequently, the Presidential election fund was nearly bankrupt coming 
out of the 1992 election.
  The Presidential system has not limited spending. Soft money, party 
and nonparty, has made the limits meaningless. The Presidential system 
provides the empirical proof that spending limits do not work. They do 
not limit total spending. They do not limit special interest money. 
Half the actual spending in Presidential elections is soft money, 
unlimited and undisclosed. And the point that I am making here is what 
I have said earlier. If you limit what the candidate for the office can 
say, it is almost by definition that spending is going to take place in 
other areas, and the spending will take place in areas that are 
uncontrolled and undisclosed.
  And so once again what may be from one person's point of view a well-
intended idea would backfire.
  As Michael Malbin, of the Rockefeller Institute of Government, and a 
renowned expert on campaign financing testified before the Senate rules 
in 1991--and I am going to be quoting him now--said:

       In every Presidential election since public funding, 
     spending has gone up--with more and more of the money going 
     off the books and underground. If people care enough about an 
     election, they will look for ways to get involved. If they 
     are big and well organized, and cannot contribute directly, 
     they will look at independent expenditures. Or delegate 
     committees. Or registration and get-out-the-vote. Or 
     communicating with Members. Or buying issue ads that 
     publicize the position of an incumbent without directly 
     advocating election or defeat. Or dozens of other devices--
     some of which have not even been thought of.

  Off-the-book activities like these have become more prominent in 
every election since 1976. Some of them can be regulated, but there is 
no way they all can be eliminated without running roughshod over the 
first amendment. More importantly, all of these devices favor the well-
organized and powerful over small participants. What the limit seems to 
be doing, in other words, is encouraging the powerful to engage in 
subterfuge and legal gamesmanship. It is giving them an incentive to 
increase their influence in ways that are poorly disclosed. As a cure 
for cynicism or corruption, this seems bizarre.
  And the point that is trying to be made here is that again if you 
limit how much an individual campaign can spend, the area generally 
where you have at least in many campaigns a large number of small 
contributors, that when you limit how much that campaign can spend, you 
are going to find independent expenditures taking place throughout the 
Nation in various campaigns. And usually those independent expenditures 
are funded by large chunks of money. And so you have a situation where 
you are in fact discouraging, while others claim this to be opposite 
but you are in a situation where you are going to discourage the small 
contributor from being involved and you are going to enhance the effect 
of the independent expenditure usually funded by large contributions.
  At this point I wish to read into the Record some comments from an 
op-ed piece that I wrote back in January 1992. It appeared in the 
Washington Times and was titled ``Passing up the Dollar Checkoff.'' And 
I want to read this material in because again I am talking here about 
the funding of Presidential campaigns, and there are several points 
that I wish to make about that since there is a relationship. Even 
though the mechanisms may be different, I think that the mechanisms, or 
the effects will be somewhat the same.

               [From the Washington Times, Feb. 12, 1992]

                     Passing Up the Dollar Checkoff

       The American people have been told by liberals for years 
     that public financing of political campaigns is good 
     government. In 1971, Congress passed the $1 checkoff 
     provision--available on income tax forms--which was supposed 
     to clean up campaign finance irregularities at the 
     presidential level.
       But how many taxpayers ever wanted or suspected that David 
     Duke, Lyndon LaRouche, or some ultra-liberal, would benefit 
     from the checkoff system?
       Why should a pro-life voter support a pro-choice candidate 
     or vice versa, or a pro-taxer support an anti-taxer? For that 
     matter, why should any voter be forced to support any 
     candidate or ideas he rejects? Freedom is freedom; there's 
     too much government intervention already.
       David Duke running for president is his business. If any 
     Americans want to contribute to his campaign, that's their 
     business, too. But I'm sure people who use the checkoff don't 
     want to fund someone whose views they believe could tear 
     apart the soul of America.
       If taxpayers really knew where their $1 was going, they 
     would demand their money back. Let's be honest with the 
     taxpayers and tell them how bad public campaign funding can 
     be. Taxpayer-funded campaigns would deter--or by some 
     proposals prohibit--individual involvement in the political 
     system and stifle free speech. That's not what America is 
     about. Support for political campaigns is a form of free 
     speech.
       Our democracy must encourage individual responsibility and 
     involvement. It's ludicrous to think that individuals can't 
     make the right decision for themselves whether to support a 
     candidate and that government must do it for them.
       It's the ``government knows best'' attitude that is ripping 
     apart the spirit of America. Let Americans as individuals 
     support whomever they wish with their own money. Keep the 
     government out of it; keep taxpayer financing out of it.
       If I don't want to support David Duke, Lyndon LaRouche, or 
     anyone else, the government shouldn't force me to with my tax 
     dollars. Even liberals should understand that.
       Under the current ``voluntary'' $1 tax checkoff, David 
     Duke, for instance, could benefit in several ways:
       In a primary election, taxpayer checkoff dollars could be 
     used to match David Duke's contribution total. Mr. Duke could 
     receive matching funds if he raises just $100,000 across 20 
     states in contributions of $250 or less. The government then 
     matched that $100,000 and continues to match new individual 
     contributions of up to $250.
       During a general election, if Mr. Duke were to receive 5 
     percent of the general election vote or more, under a complex 
     formula, Mr. Duke's share of the checkoff fund would be based 
     on the percentage of his vote total applied to the amount of 
     money the major party candidates received. For example, if 
     David Duke captures 5 percent of the general election vote, 
     he may well be entitled to over $5 million of your 
     ``voluntary'' checkoff tax dollars to reimburse his campaign 
     in 1992.
       Under the law, if Mr. Duke then decided to mount a 
     presidential campaign in 1996, after running and receiving at 
     least 5 percent of the vote in 1992, he could qualify for 
     upfront funds to hold a national political convention. This 
     is an outrage. If people knew that their ``voluntary'' tax 
     checkoff could be used to launch, say, the KKK Party or 
     America Nazi Party, they would stop immediately.
       Those who want to ``fix'' the way political campaigns are 
     run have the same tired response: more tax dollars and more 
     government. Taxpayer funding of campaigns is simply wrong. As 
     usual, more freedom is the answer to our problems, not more 
     spending and more government.

  Earlier, I referred to George Will's column which appeared in 
Newsweek June 28, 1993, and is entitled, ``So, We Talk Too Much?''

       Washington's political class and its journalistic echoes 
     are celebrating Senate passage, on a mostly party-line vote, 
     of a ``reform'' that constitutes the boldest attack on 
     freedom of speech since enactment of the Alien and Sedition 
     Acts of 1798. The campaign finance bill would ration 
     political speech. Fortunately, it is so flagrantly 
     unconstitutional that the Supreme Court will fling it back 
     across First Street, N.E., with a two word opinion: ``Good 
     grief.''
       The reformers begin, as their ilk usually does, with a 
     thumping but unargued certitude: Campaigns involved ``too 
     much'' money. (In 1992, congressional races involved a sum 
     equal to 40 percent of what Americans spent on yogurt. Given 
     the Government's increasing intrusiveness and capacity to do 
     harm, it is arguable that we spend too little on the 
     dissemination of political discourse.) But reformers eager to 
     limit spending have a problem: Mandatory spending limits are 
     unconstitutional. The Supreme Court acknowledges that the 
     first amendment protects ``the indispensable conditions for 
     meaningful communication,'' which includes spending for the 
     dissemination of speech. The reformers' impossible task is to 
     gin up ``incentives'' powerful enough to coerce candidates 
     into accepting limits that can be labeled ``voluntary.''
       The Senate bill's original incentive was public financing, 
     coupled with various punishments for privately financed 
     candidates who chose not to sell their first amendment rights 
     for taxpayers' dollars and who exceed the Government's 
     stipulated ration of permissible spending/speech. Most 
     taxpayers detest public financing.'' ``Food stamps for 
     politicians,'' says Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky 
     Republican who will lead the constitutional challenge if 
     anything like this bill becomes law.'' So the bill was 
     changed--and made even more grossly unconstitutional. Now it 
     limits public funding to candidates who oppose whose 
     opponents spend/speak in excess of Government limits. The 
     funds for the subsidy are to come from taxing''--

  Isn't this interesting? We are now going to tax free speech. We are 
now going to tax speech that is protected by the first amendment of the 
Constitution.

       The funds for the subsidy are to come from taxing, at the 
     top corporate rate, all contributions to the candidate who 
     has chosen to exercise his free speech rights with private 
     funding. So 35 percent of the people's contributions to a 
     privately funded candidate would be expropriated and given to 
     his opponent. This is part of the punishment system designed 
     to produce ``voluntary'' acceptance of spending limits.
       But the court says the Government cannot require people 
     ``to pay a tax for the exercise of that which the first 
     amendment has made a high constitutional privilege.'' The 
     court says that ``the power to tax the exercise of the rights 
     is the power to control or suppress the exercise of its 
     enjoyment'' and is ``as potent as the power of censorship.''

  He goes on in the article to talk about Government micromanagement:

       The Senate bill would ban or limit spending by political 
     action committees. It would require privately funded 
     candidates to say in their broadcast advertisements that 
     ``the candidate has not agreed to voluntary campaign 
     limits.'' (This speech regulation is grossly unconstitutional 
     because it favors a particular point of view, and because the 
     Court has held that the first amendment protects the freedom 
     to choose ``both what to say and what not to say.'') All this 
     Government micromanagement of political speech is supposed to 
     usher in the reign of ``fairness'' (as incumbents define it, 
     of course.)
       Incumbents can live happily with spending limits. 
     Incumbents will write the limits, perhaps not altogether 
     altruistically. And spending is the way challengers can 
     combat incumbents' advantages such as name recognition, 
     access to media and franked mail. Besides, the most important 
     and plentiful money spent for political purposes is dispensed 
     entirely by incumbents. It is called the Federal budget--$1.5 
     trillion this year and rising. Federal spending often is vote 
     buying.
       It is instructive that when the Senate voted to empower 
     Government to ration political speech, and even endorse 
     amending the first amendment''--

  You may remember, there was an amendment offered by Senator Hollings 
to change the Constitution so that, in fact, we could limit speech with 
respect to campaigns.

     there was no outcry from the journalists. Most of them are 
     liberals and so are disposed to like Government regulation 
     (of other people's) lives. Besides, journalists know that 
     Government rationing of political speech by candidates will 
     enlarge the importance of journalists' unlimited speech.

  And that was the point I was making earlier. It is a little bit 
surprising that those who have for over two centuries defended the 
right of free speech have been virtually silent on the issue of 
restricting free speech during this debate.

       The Senate bill's premise is that there is ``too much'' 
     political speech and some is by undesirable elements. So 
     Government control is needed to make the Nation's political 
     speech healthier. Our Government cannot balance their budgets 
     or even suppress the gunfire in America's streets. It would 
     be seemly if politicians would get on with such basic tasks, 
     rather than with the mischief of making mincemeat out of the 
     first amendment.

  Mr. President, the Presidential system has not worked. In fact, as 
Mr. Malbin has observed it worsened the problems it was supposed to 
cure. Yet, there is a concerted effort to impose that failed system on 
Congress. With hundreds of races and thousands of candidates every 
other year, it would be a huge mistake.
  Spending limits are a fraud, not reform. They do not work as 
advertised. They limit speech and citizen participation--that explains 
why constitutional scholars and the Supreme Court oppose them. And they 
stifle competition--which may explain why the majority party in 
Congress supports them.
  Yet, the Democrats in Congress persist in their quest to impose 
spending limits on campaigns. Fortunately for the American people, 
spending limit proponents have been restrained by the constitutional 
stipulation that such limits be purely voluntary. The Presidential 
spending limit system, for all its shortcomings, is voluntary. And it 
is constitutional.
  Under the Presidential system, if a candidate such as Ross Perot 
chose not to be bound by spending limits, he would not have to. He 
simply would forego the taxpayer-funded subsidies. Mr. Perot, 
Presidential candidate, would not be penalized in any way. He would not 
lose a broadcast discount. He would not lose a mailing discount. His 
opponents would not receive massive infusions of tax dollars when he 
exceeded the prescribed spending limit. Independent expenditures on his 
behalf would not be counterbalanced with tax dollars given to his 
opponent. His campaign would not be saddled with additional FEC 
reporting requirements.
  In fact, Ross Perot, John Connally, and Eugene McCarthy all made a 
principled and strategic decision not to be bound by spending limits 
and not to use taxpayer dollars to fund their Presidential campaigns. 
They were not punished for their decision. Their opponents simply were 
generously rewarded for their own decisions to comply with spending 
limits.
  There are some in this body who would like to replicate the 
Presidential system and apply it to congressional races. Unfortunately 
for them, the sheer number of congressional candidates--nearly 3,000 in 
1992--make it cost-prohibitive. At the least, it would be cost-
horrifying to taxpayers. In fact, it would be a huge new entitlement 
program. An entitlement program for politicians at a time when voters 
are wondering when we are going to get around to changing welfare as we 
know it. A new welfare program for politicians certainly was not what 
the voters had in mind when candidate Clinton was talking about welfare 
reform 2 years ago.
  Faced with this problem--how to make a spending limit system 
constitutional without angering taxpayers--spending limit proponents 
had to move away from the Presidential model. A few years ago, they 
devised the mechanism of communication vouchers. One of the early 
proposals would have given to candidates who agree to spending limits, 
communication vouchers equal to 50 percent of the general election 
limit. Candidates would use these vouchers--also known as food stamps 
for politicians--to purchase advertising time. Broadcasters would in 
turn redeem the cash value of the vouchers from the Government.
  This communication vouchers system was cheaper than full-funding 
would be but still it came with a huge price tag--literally billions 
over the course of a few elections. So the communication vouchers were 
ratcheted down in succeeding proposals from 20 to 25 percent of the 
general election limit. Still, we were talking hundreds of millions of 
dollars per election. And, a problem for the spending limit fans--the 
smaller the vouchers, the smaller the incentive for candidates to agree 
to the spending limits. The carrot kept shrinking, so out came the 
stick.
  The stick approach was tempting in its cost projection. Spending 
limit proponents figured they could put a few penalties in the bill--50 
percent broadcast discount and a mail discount--which the Congressional 
Budget Office would not count as a direct cost to the Treasury. Add in 
some additional taxpayer-funded penalties--the excessive spending and 
independent expenditure counterbalancing provisions--which only kick in 
when the spending limit was breached and the shrinking carrot would be 
sufficiently bolstered so that candidates would have no choice but to 
agree to the spending limits.
  Sure enough, the CBO cost projections were not as appalling as they 
had been earlier. While taxpayers still would bear the brunt, much of 
the cost of the congressional spending limit system had been shifted to 
broadcasters and postal users who would make up the cost of the revenue 
foregone due to the new congressional campaign mail discount.
  But even this was not enough. Even with all the new penalties, the 
communication vouchers were going to cost taxpayers hundreds of 
millions of dollars and that just was not going to fly with 
conservatives in the Senate--Democrat or Republican.

  So, last June the communication vouchers were taken out of the Senate 
bill entirely. Now the political food stamps, the last remnants of 
constitutional up front entitlements were gone. In their place was a 
new tax, the ultimate penalty for choosing to exercise the freedom of 
speech is a tax on speech. Last summer, just about every kind of tax 
one can imagine had been floated by the President for use in his budget 
proposal: The Btu tax, a gas tax, a value added tax, a national sales 
tax, a Social Security benefits tax, a payroll tax, a higher 
inheritance tax, a higher corporate tax, and even a health benefits 
tax. And now what do we see? A tax proposed on free speech in America.
  At no point in our Nation's history had we seen the level of zeal and 
creativity which this administration has dedicated to the quest for 
taxing anything that breathes. And then the Senate put forth the 
ultimate tax, quite literally taxing the sound that came out of a 
campaign if it resulted from spending over the campaign spending limit. 
Under the speech tax, a campaign would have two choices: First, be 
bound by a voluntary spending limit or, second, be taxed at the 
corporate rate, currently 35 percent. With the advent of the tax, any 
semblance of voluntariness, of constitutionality, disappeared.
  Mr. President, the Senate's adoption of the speech tax dropped any 
pretense that spending limits in the underlying bill are voluntary. The 
windfall speech tax is the incendiary device that should guarantee that 
the entire bill blows up in the Supreme Court.
  As a taxpayer funded spending limit proponent observed at the time, 
the campaign finance debate has shifted away from spending limits and 
is now centered on taxpayer financing. That should not have come as a 
surprise because spending limits and taxpayer funding are the Siamese 
twins of campaign finance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allocated to the Senator from Florida 
has now expired.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from 
Florida for his comments and remarks. I think his thoughtful concern 
for America's right of free speech is an important element in this 
discussion.
  The Senator's commitment to making sure that opportunity remains for 
all generations of this country, I think strikes at the heart of this 
issue. The reality is, without a competitive atmosphere in campaigns, 
our very freedoms that we prize in this Nation are at stake. The 
Senator's thoughts and comments are deeply appreciated, I think by 
Coloradans, as well as, I know, his own Floridians.
  How many are up tonight to hear them, I am not sure. It is 2 hours 
earlier in Colorado, so we have an opportunity to talk to those who are 
up at 2 in the morning rather than 4 in the morning. And I suspect 
those, the few who may be watching, must be wondering what in the world 
we are doing at this hour.
  This issue came before the Senate some 15 months ago. The bill was 
passed and went on to the House and the House acted, I think as all 
Members know, some 10 months ago. So literally this discussion, this 
debate could have taken place any time in the last 10 months. The 
leadership of this body, pressed with many matters I know, had problems 
scheduling it, but literally did not bring it before the body for a 
conference for 10 months. It literally was held until the end of this 
legislative session, until the last minute to be brought up.
  One wonders what the reason was for that timing. It is fair to say, I 
think, that there is opposition to the measure. I certainly am opposed 
to the measure. And so, perhaps it was because there was manifest 
opposition that it was delayed. But anyone who is considering this 
debate ought to understand that this was staged, this timing was picked 
to come up at the end of the legislative session to draw attention, 
just before the election was selected, by the majority leader who 
controls the timing of issues coming before this Chamber. In other 
words, if he were serious about passing the bill it could have been 
brought up a long time ago and this discussion had.
  I, for one, welcome the debate. I, for one, welcome the contest of 
ideas. I, for one, believe that to take money away from people, as we 
do in our tax system, and force people in effect to have their funds 
that they have worked for and earned and produced given to candidates 
whose ideas and thoughts they may or may not like, is wrong. If the 
free choice we prize as Americans has any significance whatsoever, that 
free choice at least ought to involve who our money is spent on and 
what candidates we support. To force taxpayers to support candidates 
and pay for candidates that they strongly oppose is absurd. It is why, 
when you ask people, do you want additional subsidies to candidates, 
the polls indicate no.
  Are there areas of electoral reform that they want? Of course there 
are. And there should be. I, for one, am concerned about the process 
that has taken place with political action committees. I know some who 
talk about this express concern about PAC's based on whether or not 
they receive PAC contributions; whether or not they take PAC 
contributions. But it seems to me there is a far deeper problem than 
that, and that is probably not the best way to judge that question. I 
am concerned about political action committees because the way I see 
many of them--not all of them but at least a significant number of 
them--allocate their resources.
  The concept behind political action committees is that people should 
have the opportunity to join together to donate their money to make it 
more efficient, effective. Those are not bad motives. They are not bad 
reasons. But what has happened is a very disturbing thing. For some 
organizations, some political action committees, they have become the 
arm of a lobbyist. That is, the person who wants to lobby issues on the 
Hill uses the PAC donations not to donate and support the candidates 
they may support whose philosophy and ideas they want to encourage and 
advance, but the money is used to gain access.
  How many times have we heard that expression from people who are 
associated with political action committees? What it means is that if 
you donate money to a candidate maybe it will be easier to get an 
appointment to talk to him about issues. I do not know whether that is 
valid thinking or not. I suspect with many Members it does not make a 
whit of difference. That is right. I believe with many Members that who 
they see is not directly related to who they get donations from at all. 
But there are some for whom it makes that difference. What concerns me 
about the process is not simply those who would make decisions about 
who they see based on that. What concerns me about the process is the 
violation of the trust. In any relationship where there is a legal 
trust or an empowering someone to act as your representative, as a 
political action committee does--that is empowering the chairman or the 
president of the political action committee to make decisions for you 
and to physically deliver donations for you implies that they will 
deliver those donations to people that individual trusts and likes and 
supports.
  What has happened, I think far too often with our political action 
committees, is that they have been used to gain access or thought they 
gain access rather than assist a philosophy that the donor believes and 
holds.
  I am the last one to suggest that every member of every political 
action committee shares a common philosophy. They do not. It is very 
unusual that you would have complete agreement on the primary issues in 
any political action committee. So it is understandable they would 
donate to both parties. It is understandable there would be some 
division or diversity in whom they would support. It is even 
understandable, although I think it stretches the point, that you could 
have a political action committee to donate to both sides. One such 
political action committee that I thought handled the issues very well 
was a defense contractor. I became familiar with the defense contractor 
because they had an operation in Colorado. They were fine people. They 
were supplying components for the B-1 bomber.
  During the election process when I ran for the House I responded to 
their invitation to come talk to their members. But they had a 
different way of handling it. They had individuals put their money into 
the PAC and then individuals assign their money, where it was to go. 
The first time I ran, a number of members assigned some of their 
contributions to my campaign. And during my first term we voted on an 
item called the B-1 bomber. After reviewing it my view was that it was 
not a good expenditure of public money, it was not a cost-effective 
weapons system. And while it certainly had some value, my feeling was 
there were better ways to spend the limited dollars that we had 
available to defend our country.
  Many members of that political action committee disagreed with that. 
They disagreed with it because they made parts for the B-1 bomber. They 
disagreed with it because they felt strongly it was cost effective. 
They disagreed with it because they felt it was a good focus. So the 
second time I ran they did not donate.
  When you think about it, that is probably the way the system ought to 
work. If you find a candidate that you do not like or that you cannot 
support, who differs from you on issues, you ought to have the right to 
direct your campaign contributions to someone else and that is exactly 
what happened. And it happened because the donations were decided by 
them and they made a decision based on what was important to them. That 
seems to me to be fair and reasonable. I happened to not get the 
donations. I am sure, hopefully it works other ways with other groups. 
But the point is the system worked with them and it worked because the 
individual members who donated the money had a choice. But with most 
political action committees, those decisions are made by people in 
Washington who are involved in lobbying oftentimes, and not only 
allocate the money based on who they might agree with but donate the 
money based on who they might want access to.
  In other words, the way the current system works, you may well have 
money donated from a political action committee to somebody you do not 
support and like at all. I guess you have a choice. I guess you can 
refuse to donate to the political action committee at all. But what we 
have done is tolerated and advanced and encouraged a system where the 
trust of people is not followed, where their will is not followed.
  It seems to me the primary campaign reform we ought to be talking 
about with regard to political action committees is to find some way of 
encouraging them to do the will of their members. One way is to have 
the members allocate and decide where their money goes personally and 
individually. But no one can look at the system and not be concerned 
about the potential abuse that takes place in every election cycle. If 
we were talking about that kind of change it would have and does have 
my full support. But we are talking about something else. We are 
talking about forcing people to donate through U.S. tax systems to 
candidates they may not like, may not support, maybe do not want to 
help at all. If you are concerned about people's choice, you have to be 
horrified by what is included in this bill.
  I remember a very bitter campaign that involved George McGovern, a 
Member of this body and candidate for President some years ago. How 
would Republicans feel, being forced to donate to George McGovern? Does 
that square with anybody's concept of what a democracy ought to be 
about? How would Democrats feel about being forced to donate to Richard 
Nixon? I think I have some idea. I cannot imagine that it fits anyone's 
concept of what a democracy ought to be.
  One of the concerns I have is that this taxpayer supported subsidy is 
unlimited. You can stay in Congress forever. There is no limit to how 
long Federal money would be channeled into your campaign. It removes 
one of the things that requires you to go out to at least talk to 
people and communicate with people. Some say that is good because it 
means people do not have to go and raise money. They can spend this 
time on other more fruitful endeavors, and it means that there is a 
limit on how much is spent. So you are not going to have people buying 
elections, so to speak. To those concerns let me add a couple of 
observations.
  Every incumbent enjoys an enormous name recognition advantage. That 
does not surprise anybody here. They all know it. They are all well 
aware of it. I suppose there could be some exceptions of someone who 
has built up an enormous name recognition from personal endeavors 
before they run. But absent a Bill Bradley from New Jersey who was well 
known and well thought of before he ran for office, absent that kind of 
situation, an incumbent enjoys an enormous advantage. They have the 
ability to answer correspondence paid for by the taxpayer. The 
incumbent has a name recognition that comes about in dealing with 
public issues and speaking out on them. The incumbent has the advantage 
of travel that is paid for by the Government to visit their 
constituents to respond to their inquiries. The incumbents have the 
advantage of working through the press on legitimate Government issues 
which the challenger may not have.
  The simple fact is if you are looking for a fair fight, if that is 
what this is all about, if having the Government come in and finance 
all of this to make sure it is a fair fight, then we have tied one hand 
behind the back of every challenger. This is not a fair fight. If you 
had two people start off, one with a huge name advantage and another 
with very little, and you give them the same amount of money to spend, 
who is going to win? Well, of course, it is always possible, if the 
money involved is enough, that you can develop some identity on issues. 
It is always possible someone could be beat. But it is much less 
likely, if you limit what is spent, that you will have someone with 
lower name recognition come out on top. It is not impossible but much 
less likely.
  This should be titled the ``Incumbency Protection Act.'' It is not 
unusual. It is not new. Incumbents in jobs all around the world love to 
protect themselves. Self-preservation is a basic part of human nature. 
It does not surprise anyone that Members of Congress seek ways to rig 
the game. That is what this is. But these rules are not evenhanded. No 
one thinks they are. Campaign reform in the last decade has come down 
to a series of bills where Democrats try to make it illegal to donate 
to Republicans and Republicans try to make it illegal to donate to 
Democrats.
  The only thing that is entertaining about it is the level of 
rhetoric. But this bill is not a serious effort at fair and evenhanded 
legislation. This bill before us is not that either. It is not 
evenhanded. It is meant to give advantage. It is meant to rig the rules 
so that one side wins and one side loses. It is not meant to make it 
fair and evenhanded and better for the electorate. It is meant to help 
one party win over the other. That is why you have partisan votes on 
this. Members on both sides who often demonstrate the ability to be 
independent and cross the party lines depending on the issues on this 
have tended to stay home partly because it is a partisan issue. It is 
an effort to gain a partisan advantage.
  I for one am concerned about it for another reason. This bill also 
makes it more difficult to replace incumbents.
  Americans' concept of democracy was revolutionary and for that matter 
is revolutionary. If you are going to oversimplify it, if you are going 
to generalize it, one of the aspects of American democracy is that we 
do not trust people very much. We have heard the adage that power 
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Frankly, Americans 
believe it. Our experience was with King George, and it was not a 
pleasant one. It was with someone who had enormous powers as a monarch 
and he abused them. That is why this country, which had enormous ties 
to Great Britain and great affection in many areas, broke away because 
of the abuse of power.
  But incorporated in our concept of democracy right from the start was 
an understanding of human nature. It was not just comments of the 
philosophers; it was a study of human history.
  When you look at the enormous research that went on for those people 
who attended the Constitutional Convention, you marvel and awe. At a 
time when the breadth of knowledge in our population was not as widely 
shared as it is now, at a time when the number of books published was 
far less, at a time when public libraries were limited, and at a time 
when you did not have near as many educational institutions, assembled 
at that Constitutional Convention were philosophers and political 
scientists and local officials with the wisdom that has dazzled the 
ages. The reports are that at the Constitutional Convention a large 
number of topics were discussed and a large number of models were 
examined independently. The city states of Greece were reviewed in 
depth, and the lessons that the Greeks had learned were discussed in 
depth. The concern about excessive power and how the Greeks dealt with 
it was examined. The reports that we have on that Constitutional 
Convention indicate the Swiss Canons were examined. They at least at 
that point in history were one of the few examples of something close 
to our vision of a democracy.
  As all Members know, this country not only is the longest lasting 
democratic republic in the history of mankind but it was one of the 
first.
  They looked at the Roman experience, both under the republic and 
later on under the empire. As Members are well aware, because of the 
very thoughtful comments and review made by Senator Byrd over a number 
of years commenting upon the Roman Republic, the Romans had concerns 
about excessive concentration of power. And many feel that the 
development with regard to the Roman Republic where an emperor took 
over and usurped the power of the Senate and other legislative bodies 
was part of the reason for the downfall, the corruption that had come 
about through the concentration of power.
  Originally, in the republic, there was a popular assembly in the 
Senate which limited terms for the executive officials who were 
elected, a division of power, and checks and balances. The thought was 
that by dividing the power and limiting the time in service, they could 
prevent the abuse; they could prevent an excessive concentration. They 
were familiar with the writings of Polybius and Cicero. Polybius had 
noted that the Greek city states demonstrated the phenomenon. The 
inevitable trend of concentrating power in the hands of a few, the 
democracy developing into an aristocracy that developed into a 
dictatorship, and that concentration of power ultimately resulted in 
chaos, a breakdown of the system, a wide dispersal of power and the 
beginnings of democracy again.
  That concern over the cycle of governments, and more specifically 
over the concentration of powers, is what drove our Constitution to 
adopt the structure that it did. But fundamental to those ideas and 
fundamental to the approach Americans had was an insistence that we 
limit power, that we avoid a concentration, that we have checks and 
balances, that we offset the power of the Federal Government with the 
power of the State governments, and offset all of that with our 
commitment and our reservation of power to the people in this country.
  We not only have checks and balances in the allocation of power 
between the people and the States and the Federal Government, but 
within the Federal Government, we made sure that the power was divided 
up, that no one could abuse the system. We divided the power between 
the executive and the legislative and the judicial. If that were not 
enough, we divided the power in the legislative branch between the 
House and the Senate. It was not simply a reflection of what was done 
in the past. It was a study, a plan, a commitment to restrict the 
concentration of power in this country in the hands of a few under a 
firm understanding that power could corrupt and absolute power could 
corrupt absolutely.
  Limiting power is the essence of what the American experience was all 
about. It is the essence of how Americans came to understand these 
issues. It was the essence in protecting our freedom because it was 
understood that there are trends among mankind, a trend to greater and 
greater concentrations of power in the hands of a few. And it was an 
effort to stop that process. It was an effort to stop the concentration 
of power and keep it divided.
  Mr. President, this measure endangers that very concept. Why would I 
say that? Because it makes it much more difficult to defeat an 
incumbent. By making sure that the challenger cannot spend more than 
the incumbent, by making sure that no matter how outrageous the 
incumbent's conduct is, the taxpayers have to finance his or her 
efforts whether they want to or not, we make it much more difficult to 
replace people.
  Moreover, I am convinced that by allowing unlimited terms, as this 
bill would encourage, we foster and encourage what I think is a 
disastrous practice in legislative bodies; that is, logrolling. This is 
a simple process of saying, if you will vote for my bill, I will vote 
for yours; if you will appropriate money for something I like, I will 
vote for money for something you like.
  It is at the foundation of what I have been concerned about with 
regards to the National Endowment for Democracy. NED is a danger 
because it gets the head of the Democratic Party and the head of the 
Republican Party together and tells them, ``Look. If you will just 
support money for each other, we will give you money without Federal 
supervision.'' It is the ABC's in learning logrolling. That is what is 
wrong with the National Endowment for Democracy.
  It is not that democracy is not a good idea. It is a great idea. But 
logrolling trains the parties in ways to raid and get money from the 
public Treasury. It is simply the signoff on the money that goes to the 
other party. That is one of the dangers that happens in a legislative 
body, the recognition that you can raid the public Treasury by not 
fighting each other and by cooperating with each other; that all it 
takes to get money out of the pockets of people is not to have good 
ideas or good concepts or good programs, but simply be willing to turn 
a blind eye to the money that goes to somebody else. They will in turn 
shut their eyes to the money that goes to you.
  That system of logrolling is alive because people have unlimited 
terms. If you are in a powerful position to allocate money in a 
chamber, and they are not only there now, but maybe there for a long, 
long time to come, the ability to enforce and discipline members into 
logrolling becomes possible. But if you limit terms, if you limit 
terms, it changes the dynamics tremendously. If the people who control 
the levers of spending rotate and change, then the ability to force 
people to go along, to get along falls apart.

  This measure, forcing taxpayers to give over their hard-earned money 
to fund politicians they may like or not like and to do it as long as 
that politician runs for office, regardless of what they have done and 
how they have served, is a tragic mistake. It is a violation of the 
freedom and the liberty of our citizens. But moreover, it fosters a 
practice that can lead to the corruption of the democracy that we 
enjoy.
  It fosters a practice of professional politicians, of professional 
Members of this body and of the other body. What it does is foster a 
ruling class in America. We Americans, hopefully, have respect for 
people who are in office but never thought they were any better than we 
were. We never thought the fact that you had a title meant that you had 
any more rights than anyone else.
  One recalls, with I think some sense of pleasure, Thomas Jefferson 
insisting that when he left office, the appropriate way to address him 
was ``Mr. Jefferson,'' not Mr. President. One remembers with fondness 
that when George Washington was offered a crown as the new king of this 
country, he turned it down.
  Americans are made of different stuff. It is never our intention to 
deify people in public service. One need only look at our journals and 
our newspapers to understand that far from deification, many members of 
the public have something else in mind for those who serve. To suggest 
that you are going to have a permanent ruling class that would occupy 
these halls without limit of time is as alien to the American concept 
of democracy. It is as false and as flawed and at odds with the very 
philosophy that was put in our Constitution and, more importantly, the 
wisdom of the ages which said too much power corrupts.
  The very fiber of the way we have constructed our institutions from 
bottom to top and from top to bottom is to be concerned about and aware 
of the dangers of a professional ruling class and too much power. To 
keep people here whether people are willing to donate to their 
campaigns or not, fosters logrolling, fosters a professional ruling 
class and threatens the very fiber and foundation of the concepts that 
make this country so unique.
  What do the American people think? It is a fair question. Here is the 
way they voted on term limits. In Arizona, 74 percent voted for term 
limits. In Arkansas, 60 percent voted for term limits. In California, 
63 percent voted for term limits. Colorado was first State in the 
Nation to adopt term limits for Members of Congress. I recall the 
campaign well because I was cochairman of the campaign along with Eric 
Roth. Eric Roth was a long-time leader in Democratic politics in 
Colorado. He is still very widely respected.
  He was a labor union leader and a person of great principle. It was 
unique, though, that we joined together in a ballot initiative in the 
State. We were not known as necessarily sharing the same ideas or 
always working on campaigns together but we agreed on term limits. In 
Colorado, we got 71 percent of the vote. In Florida, the State Senator 
Mack, our previous speaker, comes from, 77 percent of the Floridians 
voted for term limits, in Michigan 59 percent, in Missouri 70 percent, 
in Montana 67 percent, in Nebraska 68 percent, in North Dakota 55 
percent, in Ohio 66 percent, in Oregon 69 percent, in South Dakota 63 
percent, in Washington 52 percent, the State of the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives--the Speaker dramatically, strongly, 
vehemently, effectively opposed term limits and even in the State of 
the Speaker of the House the majority approved term limits; in Wyoming 
77 percent approved term limits.
  Mr. President, these States all approved term limits. Some have 
Democratic majorities, some have Republican majorities. That did not 
seem to matter. Some were liberal and some were conservative and that 
did not seem to matter. You see, the concern over a professional ruling 
class and professional politicians cuts across party lines and 
philosophic lines. It is American. Americans are concerned about 
excessive power. It is not just the founders of this Republic who were 
concerned about it. It is every American even to today. They somehow 
sense and understand that the more power we have to control them and 
their lives, the less power they will have. And term limits is a way to 
address it. Term limits is a way to impose controls and limitations.
  That is the essence of what the founders of our Republic tried to do.
  When I offered an amendment to this bill that would limit the number 
of terms somebody could be subsidized by the taxpayers to run for 
office, we got a new high in votes. But it did not pass. You see, there 
is a dramatic difference between the way legislators who are going to 
be subject to the term limits vote on the question and the way our 
citizens vote. But I do know one thing. There is a reason why it is so 
difficult to get the term limit measure out of committee. There is a 
reason why not once has the House Judiciary Committee allowed term 
limits to come out in the Chamber and not once has the Senate Judiciary 
Committee allowed term limits to come out in the Chamber for a vote. 
Members of the Senate and the House feel differently about term limits 
than the American people, than Democrats in America do and Republicans 
in America do because the voters in this country strongly favor it.
  Mr. President I believe within the next decade you are going to see 
term limits pass, and it is going to pass because Americans are 
concerned about the excessive concentration of power. A campaign 
finance reform bill that forces citizens to have their money spent by 
candidates that they may not like at all is outrageous. Who are we 
kidding? It is not a reform. It is a regression. It is a suggestion 
that the choice people have now of who they donate to and do not donate 
to is taken away from them; that we are going to tax the money away 
from them and allocate it the way we wish to. That does not surprise 
anybody. It does not surprise anybody that political leaders would want 
the money. But please do not pretend that denying people a choice about 
who their money goes to somehow reflects their will, or that is somehow 
favored by the American people, or that funding it with regard to 
perpetual terms for Members of Congress is somehow helping them out.
  Mr. President, here is a poll. This was taken by the National 
Taxpayers Union Foundation. The question they asked Americans is: 
``Would you favor a constitutional amendment that would limit the 
number of terms a Member of Congress can serve?'' And 75 percent said 
they favored it, 25 percent opposed. Even more interestingly, the 
period for which they proposed term limits indicates an even greater 
support for the concept. Let me give you the question: ``If limitations 
were passed on the number of terms a Member of the House of 
Representatives could serve, do you think the maximum number of terms 
should be 2 terms, 4 years?'' Thirty-four percent. Three terms, that is 
6 years, 26 percent. Together, that was 60 percent of the American 
people favored not more than 6 years' service in the House. Obviously, 
that relates to one term in the U.S. Senate. And 19 percent said the 
maximum should be 4 terms.
  Now, the measure that I have introduced in the Senate and we voted on 
on this very bill talked about 2 Senate terms or 12 years. But what we 
are looking at here is 79 percent of the Americans favored a maximum of 
4 terms or 8 years or less. Another 8 percent favored the 6 terms. By 
the time you get through this poll, there are very few supporters of 
term limits beyond the 12 years that we propose. Ours is at the outer 
end of length of service and yet the bill that is before us would 
subsidize campaigns of people not for 4 years, as 34 percent wanted, 
not for 6 years, as 60 percent want, not for 8 years, as 79 percent 
want, not for 12 years, as 87 percent want. It would subsidize their 
campaigns forever, as long as the Member lives, regardless of how they 
perform, regardless of whether their constituents like them, regardless 
of whether the American people want their money taken away from them 
and given to the politicians or not.
  Mr. President, the American people do not support this bill. They do 
not support the idea that you are going to forever keep people in 
office. They do not support the idea that you are going to rig the 
process so it is very difficult to defeat an incumbent. The American 
people favor term limits, and they favor them strongly. They favor them 
for a dramatically shorter period of time of service than any of the 
bills that we have before Congress.
  Mr. President, the American people do not favor having their taxes 
raised to fund campaigns that they may not like or want. The reality is 
that we have a system that allows people to express their wishes. The 
last question that they asked in their poll was this: ``Public 
dissatisfaction with the status quo was measured recently by a Wall 
Street Journal/NBC poll showing Americans strongly favor a limit on 
congressional terms. Do you favor a limit on congressional terms?''
  Now, this is not the U.S. term limits poll, which one might suspect 
could have some lack of objectivity. Certainly they have as strong a 
feeling for those term limits as I do. That was one done by the Wall 
Street Journal and NBC News. The response they got to their poll showed 
80 percent favor term limits and only 17 percent were opposed, even 
stronger than what the U.S. term limits found.
  Now, it has been suggested that it is unconstitutional for States to 
vote in term limits, unconstitutional for the people in a fair 
referendum and a Democratic referendum to decide to put a limit on the 
length of time that their people serve. And so before the Supreme Court 
of the United States is a challenge to the referendum passed in 
Arkansas. It will surprise no one that the term limits initiatives have 
been primarily done by referendum in States where the people have made 
the decision, not the elected representatives.
  In addressing this issue, Term Limits Outlook series has put out a 
series of papers that deal with this issue.
  I want to quote from the first one that they put out in volume II. 
This is volume II, number 1. The headline is ``Corporate Interests. Why 
big business hates term limits''--a fair title, I think. They say this:

       In 1991, Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker said that 
     ``Nowadays, its hard just to get someone to drop their bag of 
     Doritos long enough to cross the street to vote.'' In 
     November 1992, 21 million people in 14 States approved in a 
     near-national referendum sweeping Federal and State-level 
     term limits, sending a clear message to the 103d Congress of 
     their desire for fundamental political reform. Term limits 
     are an anathema to most elected officials, many of their 
     staff members and to large sections of the professional 
     special interest community. Their opposition to the 14 State 
     initiatives was expected.
       But also opposing term limits was a cross-section of big 
     corporate America. Many corporations oppose term limits out 
     of self-interest: they have a stake in status quo government 
     and they don't want to lose it under term limits. But the 
     extent to which large corporations will oppose term limits 
     underlines the fact that, as government grows omniprovident, 
     big business, too, has as much to fear from a change in the 
     rules of incumbency as the incumbents themselves.
       Nationally, term limit opponents spent between $3 million 
     and $4 million, not the $1 million anti-term limit consultant 
     Victor Kamber asserted in an election day article in USA 
     Today. On the books, spending against term limits looks 
     small--around $1.5 million. But almost $2 million in soft 
     money funneled through the California Democratic Party to 
     stop term limits. Staffers close to one of the congressmen 
     actively opposing California's Proposition 164 said that the 
     money was available to the anti-term limit campaign, but that 
     it was decided to use the funds for get-out the vote 
     activities and slate mailings urging a ``no'' vote on Prop 
     164 rather than a direct assault.
       Term limit proponents, including national organizations 
     like U.S. Term Limits, Americans to Limit Congressional 
     Terms, Americans Back in Charge and the 14 individual state 
     organizations spent close to $4 million on the campaign, far 
     less than the $6 million Kamber estimated in USA Today. 
     Expenses like advertising, legal fees and significant 
     petition signature gathering costs translated into a cost-
     per-vote of roughly 17 cents. This compares to the $1.7 
     million Rep. Newt Gingrich spent to earn the votes of 158,000 
     people in Georgia's 6th congressional district ($10.76 per 
     vote) and the $26 million spent to earn 18 million votes by 
     the four major party candidates running for a U.S. Senate 
     seat in California ($1.44 per vote).

  Mr. President, I break in on the article here because of I want to 
emphasize the comparison. They are talking about 17 cent a vote versus 
a $10.76 cents a vote that Congressman Gingrich spent. The article 
continues:

       For term limit supporters, a little money went a long way.
       Oppoinents concentrated their efforts primarily in a few 
     states: California, Michigan, Washington, and Arkansas; all 
     States with Democratic majorities, all home to powerful 
     Members of Congress and all winnable. In general, term limit 
     opponents waited until late in the campaign to organize and 
     fund their efforts, in part, according to term limit backers, 
     to avoid public scrutiny. This was not the case, though, in 
     Michigan, where opponents aggressively campaigned against the 
     term limit initiative, Proposal B, from almost the very 
     beginning.
       Term limit opponents in Michigan were able to 
     tap considerable corporate resources. Donations by General 
     Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Upjohn, Blue Cross-Blue Shield of 
     Michigan, Michigan Bell, Detroit Edison, Southern 
     California Edison, Philip Morris, The Coastal Corporation, 
     Kellogg, USX, Pacific Telesis, and General Dynamics 
     enabled the Michigan Citizens Committee Against Term 
     Limitation and its affiliated media-buying group, Michigan 
     Citizens Alert, to wage a $500,000 ad campaign against 
     Proposal B. It's ironic to note that former Chrysler 
     Chairman Lee Iacocca is a term limit supporter, writing 
     that ``a $4 trillion national debt, a $3 trillion deficit 
     since 1980, and $300 billion in red ink in just the past 
     year is prima facie evidence that the `professionals' have 
     botched the job.'' His former company, and its automaker 
     allies, spent $105,000 to try to stop the concept Iacocca 
     endorses.
       This list of large corporate sponsors would seem to 
     indicate that more was at stake in the November 3d Michigan 
     election than just term limits. Some of these companies had 
     parochial interests involved: Kellogg, Ford, GM, Chrysler, 
     Detroit Edison, Michigan Bell, and Upjohn are all Michigan-
     based corporations and they have a history of supporting 
     Michigan's political establishment. They also have a history 
     of supporting incumbent politicians.
       Between 1979 and 1990, the primary PAC's of these seven 
     companies donated an average of 16.5 times more money to 
     congressional incumbents than they did to congressional 
     challengers. Incumbent officeholders usually hold a PAC 
     fundraising advantage, an average 12.5:1 for the 1992 House 
     races.
       This fact has given rise to repeated calls for campaign 
     finance reform--in fact, to the birth of an entire campaign 
     finance reform industry. Opponents of Michigan's Proposal B 
     cloaked their arguments against term limits in the rhetoric 
     of campaign finance reform. Ted Cooper, CEO of Upjohn and 
     cochairman of the Michigan Citizens Committee Against Term 
     Limitations wrote, ``Our campaign finance system virtually 
     assures that no one gets elected to national office without 
     massive campaign spending. Promising challengers are often 
     taken out of races simply because they can't raise money as 
     effectively as their opponents.'' Upjohn has donated nearly 
     22 times more money to incumbent officeholders since 1979 
     than it has to challengers. Further, Upjohn has not put any 
     money into groups that actively work toward campaign reform. 
     Upjohn's corporate foundations spend their money on 
     charitable causes in the Kalamazoo area--where Upjohn is 
     headquartered--and on such national groups as the United 
     Negro College Fund, the Nature Conservancy, and the 
     conservative Washington, DC think tank (and term limit 
     supporter) the Heritage Foundation.
       Similar sentiments were voiced by Ford Motor Company 
     executive Susan Shackson: ``Campaign finance reform may be a 
     better response to incumbent fundraising advantages because 
     it would increase fairness without diminishing choice.'' Ford 
     has donated nearly 16 times more money to incumbents than to 
     challengers since 1979.
       But both Cooper and Shackson go to the heart of corporate 
     opposition to term limits when they talk about the 
     ramifications such limits might have on their vested 
     congressional interests. Shackson writes that term limits 
     ``could make a career in politics less attainable, and more 
     candidates could come from special interest groups--such as 
     labor, education, or trial lawyers organizations--that are 
     unsupportive or even hostile toward business and industry.'' 
     Upjohn's Cooper noted that ``The pharmaceutical industry, 
     along with every other sector of manufacturing, commerce and 
     policy has been called a special interest, and it has been 
     suggested that we control legislators. If that were so * * * 
     things would be quite different for us in Washington and in 
     our state capitals. We work very hard to develop legislative 
     allies, and the only way we can do this is to convince these 
     people of the rightness of our cause.''

  Mr. President, the article goes on about U.S. term limits. But the 
point they try to make is the position of corporate leaders, of large 
corporations, who have a vested interest in the way things work right 
now. The kind of reform that is before this body is one that cements in 
the incumbents. It is not one that changes the system. It is one that 
makes sure it cannot be changed.
  Stephen C. Ericson published an article in Policy Review. It is 
entitled ``James Madison's Case for Term Limits.'' I want to just share 
a little bit of it because I think James Madison, in his wisdom, got 
right to the heart of the question.
  The article starts off as follows:

       In 1787 a French diplomat made a remarkable prediction 
     about the American political system. Reporting to his home 
     government, Louis Guillaume Otto pointed to what he believed 
     was a critical flaw in the new American Constitution:
       ``It is true that the President will be elected for only 
     four years, the Senators for only six, the Representatives 
     for only two, but they will always be eligible [Otto's 
     emphasis]; will not elections be for sale . . . especially 
     when they will be able to command the public treasury at 
     will?''

     Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution had serious 
     doubts about a lack of term limitation, fearing a distant 
     government that would grow independent of its electors and 
     become corrupted by centralized power.
       Term limitation also had a backer within the ranks of the 
     Federalists, the ``Father of the Constitution'' himself, 
     James Madison. Madison's call for legislative term limitation 
     was unique, in that he proposed to use the concept as a means 
     to control special interests. It is his argument that speaks 
     to us most forcefully today.


                          rotation of offices

       The notion of restricting re-election is as old as the 
     democracy of ancient Greece, where the practice of 
     legislative term limitation found expression in the writings 
     of Aristotle. The idea was adopted by English republicans, 
     the most influential of whom was James Harrington. Harrington 
     made ``rotation of offices'' a centerpiece of his mode 
     Commonwealth of Oceana, a plan Madison probably studied when 
     contemplating the design of an American republic.
       Harrington's concept of rotation was passed down to 
     generations of English and American republican thinkers, 
     including the framers of the Articles of Confederation. A 
     number of early American state constitutions also adopted the 
     concept for a range of office holders, from governors to 
     local sheriffs and coroners. Madison's colleague and fellow 
     Virginian George Mason wrote term limitation into the 
     influential Virginia Declaration of Rights, illustrating how 
     re-election restrictions were commonly associated with the 
     most essential constitutional guarantees against tyrannical 
     government. Anti-Federalists believed that legislators 
     inevitably became corrupted when allowed to hold office for 
     long periods of time, and that one way to ensure just laws 
     was to compel legislators to live periodically as ordinary 
     citizens under the laws of their own design.
       Equally important, rotation of offices would educate large 
     numbers of citizens in the art of governing through office 
     holding, and thus make it more difficult for government to 
     encroach on their liberties undetected. Many Americans of the 
     founding generation saw rotation of offices through mandatory 
     term limitation as a key to the maintenance of a selfless and 
     politically astute citizenry, qualities known as public 
     virtue, which were necessary if the republic was to survive.

  Mr. President, the article goes on. I ask unanimous consent to have 
the entire article printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    A Bulwark Against Faction--James Madison's Case for Term Limits

                        (By Stephen C. Erickson)

       In 1787 a French diplomat made a remarkable prediction 
     about the American political system. Reporting to his home 
     government, Louis Guillaume Otto pointed to what he believed 
     was a critical flaw in the new American Constitution:
       ``It is true the President will be elected for only four 
     years, the Senators for only six, the Representatives for 
     only two, but they will always be eligible [Otto's emphasis]; 
     will not elections be for sales . . . especially when they 
     will be able to command the public treasury at will?

     Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution had serious 
     doubts about a lack of term limitation, fearing a distant 
     government that would grow independent of its electors and 
     become corrupted by centralized power.
       Term limitation also had a backer within the ranks of the 
     Federalists, the ``Father of the Constitution'' himself, 
     James Madison. Madison's call for legislative term limitation 
     was unique, in that he proposed to use the concept as a means 
     to control special interests. It is his argument that speaks 
     to us most forcefully today.


                          rotation of offices

       The notion of restricting re-election is as old as the 
     democracy of ancient Greece, where the practice of 
     legislative term limitation found expression in the writings 
     of Aristotle. The idea was adopted by English republicans, 
     the most influential of whom was James Harrington. Harrington 
     made ``rotation of offices'' a centerpiece of his model 
     Commonwealth of Oceana, a plan Madison probably studied when 
     contemplating the design of an American republic.
       Harrington's concept of rotation was passed down to 
     generations of English and American republican thinkers, 
     including the framers of the Articles of Confederation. A 
     number of early American state constitutions also adopted the 
     concept for a range of office holders, from governors to 
     local sheriffs and coroners. Madison's colleague and fellow 
     Virginian George Mason wrote term limitation into the 
     influential Virginia Declaration of Rights, illustrating how 
     re-election restrictions were commonly associated with the 
     most essential constitutional guarantees against tyrannical 
     government. Anti-Federalists believed that legislators 
     inevitably became corrupted when allowed to hold office 
     for long periods of time, and that one way to ensure just 
     laws was to compel legislators to live periodically as 
     ordinary citizens under the laws of their own design.
       Equally important, rotation of offices would educate large 
     numbers of citizens in the art of governing through office 
     holding, and thus make it more difficult for government to 
     encroach on their liberties undetected. Many Americans of the 
     founding generation saw rotation of offices through mandatory 
     term limitation as a key to the maintenance of a selfless and 
     politically astute citizenry, qualities known as public 
     virtue, which were necessary if the republic was to survive.


                Popular government's ``mortal diseases''

       Madison agreed that a measure of public virtue was required 
     for the operation of republican government, but was more 
     inclined to believe that man was essentially a self-
     interested creature and that public virtue alone was not 
     enough to secure the republic. His great concern was that 
     groups of people, or factions as he called them, would come 
     to dominate government at the expense of the common good. 
     Madison's idea of faction is nearly identical to the modern 
     notion of special interest.
       In his now-famous Federalist Number 10, Madison defined 
     faction as a group of citizens ``adverse to the rights of 
     other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests 
     of the community.'' He pointed out that factions may derive 
     from different moral and philosophical opinions, but are 
     especially potent and determined when motivated by economic 
     interests. They are ``the mortal diseases under which popular 
     governments have everywhere perished,'' said Madison. Because 
     factions are endemic to free society, the central 
     intellectual challenge in designing a constitution for the 
     United States was to minimize the effects of special 
     interests on government. The enslavement of modern American 
     government to special interests and local constituencies at 
     the expense of pressing national concerns indicates that 
     something has gone drastically wrong with the Founders' 
     strategy for controlling faction.
       The system of checks and balances taught to every American 
     school child is the Founders' first weapon against faction. 
     Their plan gave the various branches of government not only 
     different powers, but also contrasting temperaments.
       To the executive they gave energy and to the judiciary 
     independence. In keeping with the classical model, the 
     Founders attempted to provide the two branches of Congress 
     with the complementary characters of wisdom and virtue. 
     Chosen by direct election, the House was designed to be 
     immediately representative of the people, exercising 
     republican government in its raw form. Madison argued that 
     this lower branch would be most capable of reflecting the 
     public virtue found in the body of the citizens, but might 
     lack the wisdom to distinguish self-interests from broader 
     community interests, become motivated by popular passions, 
     and thus be prone to faction.


                         coolness in the Senate

       To check the potentially narrow-minded perspective of the 
     lower branch, Madison supported a Senate that would proceed 
     ``with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom 
     than the popular branch.'' Popular passions were to be cooled 
     through indirect election, a ``refining process'' whereby 
     senators were elected by state legislatures--although Madison 
     personally preferred indirect means other than state 
     governments. Members of the upper house represented greater 
     territories and would therefore possess a broader view, and 
     hold office for six-year terms to give them more time to 
     become acquainted with national concerns. While the upper 
     house would be a constant check upon faction, its actions 
     would in turn be monitored by the lower house to safeguard 
     against the potential corruption of government bodies more 
     distant from the oversight of the people. On paper, the House 
     and Senate stuck an ideal balance.
       But differences between the upper and lower houses of 
     Congress disappeared in the 19th and early 20th centuries, as 
     the indirect election process was gradually eliminated 
     throughout the states. Today's senators are, in effect, 
     representatives with longer terms, and are no more resistant 
     to special interests than their counterparts in the House. 
     Even if the Founders' ``refining'' mechanism were still in 
     place, it is difficult to see how it would be an adequate 
     defense against modern special interests, given the vast 
     capability of modern government to serve those interests. 
     Indeed, circumstances have rendered both houses of Congress 
     identical in character and temperament.


                      advantage of large republic

       Another way Madison hoped to discourage faction was in the 
     creation of a large republic. While a small republic might 
     easily split into two factions or interests, Madison believed 
     that a large and populous territory like the United States, 
     containing many conflicting interests, would be less prone to 
     faction because in a large republic it would be difficult for 
     any single interest to form a majority and serve itself at 
     the expense of the common good; on the contrary; a host of 
     conflicting interests would check each other. Madison's 
     theory held as long as the federal government's power 
     remained relatively limited. Yet limited federal power 
     encouraged the rise and militant assertion of a minority 
     Southern slave interest, which led to the Civil War--
     America's bloodiest battle with faction.
       Ironically, the Civil War marked a major step in the growth 
     of an increasingly powerful federal government that 
     eventually undermined Madison's large-republic theory. 
     Commanding enormous power and resources, modern government 
     now serves thousands of special interests simultaneously in 
     ways unimagined by Madison and his fellow Founding Fathers. 
     Today special interests are banded together and served by 
     their agents in government, principally congressmen, to form 
     a collective majority. Modern politics have rendered national 
     interests to be, in practice if not in reality, the sum of a 
     vast number of special interests. The mechanisms the Founders 
     incorporated into the Constitution are too feeble to address 
     the threats posed by special interests to a modern state 
     operating within an infinitely more complex society than that 
     of 18th-century America.


                  madison calls twice for term limits

       Madison, however, proposed to deploy another weapon in the 
     fight against special interests, and that weapon was 
     legislative term limitation.
       The idea was first raised at the Philadelphia Convention on 
     May 29, 1787 in the Virginia Plan. Although introduced by 
     Governor Edmund Randolph, the Virginia Plan had been outlined 
     by Madison in letters to Randolph and George Washington prior 
     to the convention, and served as the initial working draft of 
     the Constitution itself. The plan declared that members of 
     the lower house were to be ineligible to run for re-election 
     after a single two-year term in office and would not be 
     allowed to run again for an unspecified number of years 
     thereafter. The upper house was to be elected by the lower 
     house, incorporating Madison's preferred refining mechanism. 
     As a result, term limitation could potentially affect the 
     entire legislative branch. Here, in the Virginia Plan, 
     Madison called for a radical application of legislative term 
     limitation, mandating an entire new House of Representatives 
     every two years and holding out the possibility for frequent 
     and significant changes in the Senate.
       Although term limitation was later struck from the Virginia 
     Plan, Madison again raised the issue in a noteworthy speech 
     on June 26 that encapsulated much of what he would later 
     write in Federalist 10. The delegates had been discussing the 
     creation of a Senate where Madison hoped to establish a 
     bulwark against faction. Writing about himself in the third 
     person in his notes from the convention, Madison stated:
       ``[He] did not conceive that the term of nine years could 
     threaten any real danger; but in pursuing his particular 
     ideas on the subject, he should require that the long term 
     allowed to the second branch should not commence till such a 
     period of life, as would render a perpetual disqualification 
     to be re-elected.''
       Here Madison differentiated the House and Senate far more 
     profoundly than did the final draft of the Constitution. As a 
     result of short terms and the potential for re-election, the 
     House would be sensitive to the changing needs and interests 
     of the population. The Senate, on the other hand, comprised 
     of the old and presumably wise, would take a long and more 
     objective view and, without election pressures that result 
     from short terms and re-elections, would be more capable of 
     rising above narrow self-interests than members of the House. 
     Such ideas, found in his convention speeches and in the 
     Virginia Plan, reflect the true Madison even more than his 
     famous writings in The Federalist, where he argued not 
     necessarily for his own proposals, but in favor of a 
     constitution that was the product of a great political 
     compromise.
       Madison's efforts on behalf of term limitation were modest 
     and encountered almost no encouragement at the Philadelphia 
     Convention. Arch-Federalists took strong objection to the 
     prospect of a government of amateurs. Their argument is one 
     that has always dogged the case for term limitation, and 
     indeed their objections are frequently echoed by modern 
     critics of the idea.
       Madison also agreed that government must be wise, and he 
     therefore could support a nine-year term in the Senate to 
     ensure that one house of Congress was well experienced. 
     Classical political theorists had advised the creation of 
     upper houses comprised of aristocrats, reasoning that only 
     a leisure class would have the time to read widely enough 
     to govern wisely. In Harrington's republic, the upper 
     house debated and proposed legislation, but it was the 
     lower house that voted it up or down. Thus, government was 
     divided into the higher function of debating and proposing 
     carried out by an educated elite, and the lower function 
     of choosing, performed by the representatives of more 
     virtuous freeholders.


                     the rise of career politicians

       But who actually proposes modern legislation? Today, laws 
     and policies are developed by legions of legislative 
     staffers, bureaucrats, and lobbyists, while the choosing is 
     left to elected officials in both houses of Congress. In 
     terms of the classical model, the brain trust has moved from 
     the old aristocratic upper house to a professional class of 
     public policy experts. Given the complexities of modern 
     government and society, no other division of labor seems 
     possible. The modern U.S. Congress is no smarter than the 
     bureaucracy that supports it, and is therefore neither 
     especially wise nor virtuous.
       No doubt many of Madison's colleagues at the Philadelphia 
     Convention would have joined him in support of legislative 
     term limitation had they foreseen the possibility of the rise 
     of a class of career politicians, all but unimaginable in 
     1787. Indeed, Madison acknowledged that ``a few'' members of 
     the legislative branch would be ``frequently re-elected'' but 
     that ``new members would always form a large Proportion.'' 
     The Anti-Federalists were less convinced, and their case for 
     re-election restrictions based upon worries about corruption 
     and the establishment of a detached ruling class is still 
     relevant today.
       But it is Madison's argument for term limitation that cuts 
     to the heart of what is wrong with the present American 
     political system. Unlike his Anti-Federalist critics who 
     called for term limitation to prevent the rise of a 
     government independent of the people. Madison sought to use 
     the concept to give legislators more independence from their 
     own narrow constituencies and self-interests. He attempted to 
     create a system whereby legislators were not advocates for 
     special groups, but impartial umpires for the national 
     interest.
       Madison understood that all legislative decisions are 
     biased and attempted to minimize those biases by encouraging 
     legislators to be less interested and more judicious through 
     mechanisms like term limitation. Madison knew that the desire 
     to be re-elected could make legislators pawns to special 
     interests. And getting re-elected is naturally a primary 
     concern of modern career politicians. Thus, the present 
     system maximizes the influence of special interests at the 
     expense of the common good, and turns Madison's vision of the 
     American republic completely on its head.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, my time is drawing to a close, but I do not 
want the debate to end without noting this: The future of our country's 
democracy, the future of our independence, the viability of the 
separation of powers depends in large measure on making sure that we do 
not have the phenomenon occur in America which Cicero and Polybius 
talked about: The eventual concentration of power into the hands of a 
few people.
  One cannot look at our economy and not be dazzled by the enormous 
concentration of power that we have given to Washington, DC. I defy 
anyone in this Chamber to tell me how it is possible to read 70,000 
pages of new Federal regulations that this Government put out last 
year. We attempt to regulate the details and the daily lives of the 
American people. That is not what democracy is all about. It is not 
about having someone dictate to us how we are going to live our lives 
and the details of how we do our jobs. Democracy is about letting 
people make their own mistakes and make their own conclusions and live 
their own lives.
  Yes, Government has a role. It is to protect the country and protect 
us from each other, but it is not to tell us what kind of plank to put 
down when we walk across a ditch. It is not to tell us to keep a 
logbook on how we use Joy dishwashing detergent, which someone in 
Florida a few years ago was fined $500 for not doing.
  It is not to tell doctors to keep a long logbook every time they wash 
their hands. If Members think we are kidding, take a look at the blood 
pathogens regulation that this body voted for with only one negative 
vote.
  We tell someone who has 4 years of college, 3 or 4 years of medical 
school, a couple years of interning, a couple years of specialization, 
when to wash their hands, when not to and how to keep a log on it. That 
is ludicrous.
  What we have come to in this country is the kind of Government that 
thinks it is going to run the minute details of how we run our lives, 
and it is nuts.
  The essence of this country is freedom of choice and, yes, even the 
ability to make mistakes. To suggest you are going to provide a 
growing, livable, functional, competitive economy, when the Government 
decides every minute detail of how we conduct our business, is 
ludicrous and absurd.
  To enact a campaign reform bill that makes sure incumbents do not 
lose is not reform, it is an abuse. To say you are going to tax people 
and take their money, without their choice, and hand it to politicians 
they do not like to keep in office is wrong. It is not a reform, it is 
a self-serving preservation.
  This country is strong and able and creative, but it is not going to 
stay that way if we do not leave the power of this country in the hands 
of the people who do the work, because the working men and women of 
this country are the ones who make it work and prosper and make it 
creative.
  This Nation is going to survive just as long as we leave the power of 
our country in the hands of those people who make it strong.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask to speak to the Senate on this issue 
which is before us and to congratulate the Senator from Colorado for 
his superb comments on this point.
  Before I begin, I also wish to thank the staff of the Senate and the 
staff of the Capitol for what has obviously been a strain on their 
lives to be here throughout the evening, into the evening and through 
the night and be here at this early hour. It is greatly appreciated by 
myself and I know other Members of the Senate. The dedication of staff 
that works within this body and works within the Capitol is 
extraordinary.
  I was just downstairs and saw a gentleman who has to be in his late 
seventies who has worked here for many, many years and has been up all 
night, as a courtesy to the Senate, Members of the Senate, to make sure 
as we work through the night, the business of the Senate was done 
efficiently and well.
  He is just one of many, obviously, but an example of the commitment 
of these people who surround us here and make the capacity to serve in 
this body so much better. So I wish to begin this statement by thanking 
them for their time and effort, energy and willingness to put forward 
and sacrifice, obviously, from their own lifestyles in order to serve 
and work in this body with us.
  There has obviously been a great deal of discussion on the issue of 
campaign finance reform over the last 17 hours of this debate. It is my 
pleasure to put my oar in the water here at 5 a.m., which I guess is 
about 2 a.m. in California. But in England, it is prime time, I 
believe.
  You learn many things when you begin to speak at this hour of the 
morning. I did learn--and I often wondered coming up Constitution 
Avenue--why you could never get from one stoplight to the next without 
the stoplights you are proceeding to going red. I discovered this 
morning that the stoplights are timed for 4 o'clock in the morning. 
Driving up Constitution Avenue from the Potomac River to the Capitol, 
at 4 o'clock in the morning, the stoplights are all perfectly timed. So 
you do learn things by having an opportunity to speak at this hour.
  I do recall, having a chance to speak at this time, a fellow named 
Oscar Mason who lived down in New Hampshire and had been a farmer for 
many years. He was in his late sixties at the time this event happened.
  One Sunday he got up and went down to church, and because there was 
another major function going on in town that day, and he had not 
learned of it, and there was going to be a service later on, the early 
morning service was rather sparsely attended. In fact, he was the only 
one who arrived there.
  He walked into church, sat down in his pew and Minister Ephraim came 
in and noticed he was there, so he felt he should give him a service. 
Minister Ephraim was a person of considerable talents and abilities, 
and so he started the service off with a hymn, on to a prayer and then 
went to a few readings, explained the readings of the Old Testament and 
a few more readings, and explained the readings of the New Testament.
  He went on to even give the children's sermon because he had a good 
one and thought Oscar might be interested in it. And he delivered the 
offertory and did a couple more hymns and did some responsive readings 
and gave what he felt was one of his best sermons. It went on for about 
30, 40 minutes. He was of the old school ministry. He liked to talk a 
great deal in the church, and he gave good sermons.
  Then he gave a couple more hymns, closed the service and went to the 
back of the church. Oscar got up slowly and walked down the aisle. 
Minister Ephraim, as was his custom, stood at the door at the rectory 
to shake his hand, the door to the exit of the church. Oscar shook his 
hand, and Minister Ephraim said, ``What do you think of the service?''
  Oscar thought for a minute. He said, ``Well, if I go down in my field 
with some manure and I only find one stock of corn, I don't dump the 
whole load on it.''
  I think that is applicable today. I, unfortunately, want to absorb my 
whole hour. I have to put the whole load forward. There is an awful lot 
to talk about, and I have an opportunity to do that. It is an 
opportunity which I intend to take full account of.
  The whole issue of finance reform is, of course, an issue that rises 
here fairly regularly. It is an issue that I find to be fascinating and 
one which I have been involved with myself over the years in my prior 
activities as Governor of New Hampshire. I had the chance to pass the 
first major campaign finance reform legislation in the State in over 20 
years. And I believe that what we are dealing with here today 
originally started out to be a good-faith effort to improve the finance 
laws of the Federal Government relative to campaigning.
  Unfortunately, it deteriorated, as is traditionally and typically, 
regrettably the case. Because when you are dealing with finance reform, 
I think we all understand that you are dealing with the lifeblood of 
the political process. Whether you like it or not, whether or not a 
person can get reelected or whether or not they can sense that they can 
get reelected or whether their campaign is going to be impacted by some 
action taken by this body on their reelection is about as close to the 
heart of a matter of what makes a Member of the Congress and people 
competing for the job of serving in the Congress.
  So as you get from the theoretical discussion of what would be a good 
way to finance campaigns to the specific discussion of how to do it, 
you transition from good will and good intentions into the most 
aggressive and toughest street fighting in the area of politics that 
exists.
  Campaign finance reform, as an initiative, has not been unusual. In 
fact, much of what we hear about today as being egregious in the area 
of campaign finance activity was the result of reform. I think we all 
recognize that political action committees which have become really the 
whipping boys, women or persons, if I may use that term, of the 
campaign financing debate to a large extent were actually developed as 
a reform mechanism.
  It was an attempt, and I think it was an attempt that has, in many 
ways, succeeded, of making sure that we had full accountability in the 
political financing process.
  The original concept in founding political action committees is that 
a group of people and individuals should be allowed, if they have an 
identity of interest, to gather together and to support candidates who 
agreed with their identity of interest or who they thought were going 
to be positive in influencing and affecting the way the Government 
functioned.
  In gathering together, they should not only be able to gather 
together as individuals and vote and gather together as individuals and 
hold signs and pass out literature, but they also should be allowed as 
individuals to gather together and pool their funds--$25 here, $50 
there, $100 there--from their memberships or from their groups, whether 
it was a labor union or whether it was a group of dentists or whether 
it was a group of florists or whether it was a group of people who 
wanted to advocate better mental health, or whatever the group was. 
They should be able to pool their funds, and then by having 50, 60, 
100, 1,000 people who have the same interest, or thousands of people, 
in some instances, who have the same interest contributing small 
amounts of money into a basic fund, they would then take those funds 
and, with spending limits and with distribution limits in place of 
$5,000 per candidate in the election cycle, just be able to give those 
funds in larger sums to people who they felt would be supportive of the 
interest which they are also concerned about.
  That is really coalition politics and participatory politics, and the 
concept was--and I think it was a good one--that it would get more 
people involved in Government, get more people committed to being 
involved in Government and, equally important, it would be full 
disclosure of who was involved in Government, who was participating.
  I seriously doubt that in this country there is a race for Congress 
that does not at some point during that race discuss the issue of who 
contributed to whom and how much. Certainly in the area of PAC's, they 
discuss the issue of which PAC's gave to which candidate. There are ads 
in almost every campaign where PAC contributions are involved. John 
Jones, who is running for Congress, received money from the XYZ PAC, 
and XYZ stands for this and the ads of the opponent of John Jones says 
they would never take money from the XYZ PAC, and people who are voting 
should not agree with it either and it shows Mr. Jones is going to be 
influenced by that contribution.
  The practical effect of those types of exchanges are exactly what the 
original reform law intended which was that there would be full 
disclosure of who gave these funds; that you would know the identity of 
the interest groups giving the funds; that you would know that interest 
group was limited in its amount of contribution to a fixed amount more 
than $5,000 per cycle; and that, if the electorate was fully informed, 
the electorate could make a decision. And it was the job of the 
candidate that was running for office to make those points and inform 
the public as to what was happening. To a large degree, that system has 
worked because you see it in every election. It is raised as an issue. 
But, unfortunately, there were more loopholes, there were problems in 
the process, and there has been a considerable effort to revisit the 
process and try to improve it. That brings us to this point.

  But as I said earlier, when you transition from the theory of 
improving the process to the specifics of improving the process, you 
transition from the academic to the most intensely personal and 
intensely aggressively competed after issue of the political process. 
The problem is that when you get into the specifics, people try to get 
in the process.
  What we have before us regrettably is a bill which when it was in 
discussion form was conceived of in theory as being a fair and honest 
and effective attempt to try to address the problems of campaign 
financing in this country. When it got into specifics and was delivered 
and produced, it became an extraordinarily partisan piece of 
legislation the purpose of which is to create a playing field which is 
not only not level, but it is more on the precipice. It has more of a 
geographic terrain of the side of a Mt. Everest. It is almost 
perpendicular.
  That is unfortunate because we have some ideas floating around here 
for effective campaign reform which would have worked. But this bill 
clearly does not accomplish that. We have heard about 17 hours of the 
specifics of why it does not accomplish that. I hope to go into some 
more of those during this time that I have. But it is unfortunate that 
it did not work.
  In New Hampshire, on the other hand, when we took up campaign finance 
reform, we tried to maintain a level playing field. We actually came 
out of some of the basic philosophy that is found in the original 
concept of this bill that was, unfortunately, bastardized in the 
process of developing.
  When I was Governor we put in a clause that I mentioned earlier. 
There has been 20 years of reform of campaigns. And the basic law was 
driven by the belief that the problem was not in the raising of the 
money because the raising of the money was fully disclosed and the 
constituents, people who were interested and willing to receive 
contributions, had the opportunity through their opponents' disclosure 
and their own disclosure to find out exactly where the money had come 
from and make such conclusions as they would. That was effective.
  The problem really was the fact that there was such pressure to spend 
so much money in the campaigns. It was really the pressure to spend the 
money that caused them to be forced to raise it. So we did in New 
Hampshire use the approach of a cap. But we did not use it in the 
context that this bill has used it and taken it and unfortunately 
perverted it. We used it in a fair and honest approach. And it has 
worked reasonably well. It is a voluntary cap. People can sign up for 
it or not. Then again it becomes an issue of disclosure. People sign up 
for it. It is disclosed and becomes part of the campaign and people can 
respect candidates who are willing to live by the cap. If they do not 
sign up for it, then they do not receive that benefit. That is really 
the only plus or minus--to exceed the cap or sign up for it. In most 
instances, people running for major office in New Hampshire have signed 
up for the cap.
  In fact, I have lived under a cap every time I run for office or 
attempted to, although regrettably in the last campaign we ended up 
exceeding it slightly. But we obviously if the cap had not be there 
would have spent a great deal more. Only one major candidate in the 
State or maybe two have consistently ignored the concept. But the 
concept was a fair one. It was done in a way that basically stuck it to 
the opposing party in the State.
  It is I think an example of how you can do campaign finance reform 
fairly versus this bill which is clearly nothing more than a partisan 
attempt to basically gain dramatic advantage. So the party in the 
majority in the House and the Senate right now can maintain its 
majority status through the use of funds and campaign financing. It is 
ironic that in New Hampshire where it has been a fairly strong State 
that one party for many years with significant majorities in both 
Houses up until the last session, but still a majority now, did not 
pursue that sort of course. We pursued a much fairer and equitable 
course which gave everybody a reasonable chance.
  Of course, in this process that opportunity was there, during the 
process the opportunity to be fair and equitable, to produce a bill 
that would have been effective and would have actually improved 
campaign financing and not have done it in a way of burdening one group 
of people of a political view over the other. That opportunity was 
there too. But it was abandoned, ignored, not only ignored, it was 
actually buried. Basically, a great big hole was dug and fairness was 
put in it and a lot of dirt was thrown on top of it. Instead, we see 
produced this bill which is such an atrocity of partisanship and a 
basic attack on the taxpayers of this country in the name of campaign 
finance.
  If you were to ask citizens what they think Congress should focus on, 
I believe that, although it probably would not be at the top of the 
list, most would certainly mention campaign finance reform because 
there is clearly in this country and has been a significant discussion. 
But I also suspect that they would not want to pick up the tab of 
campaign finance reform.
  That is what this issue is about, to a large extent, because the 
House and the Senate bills create a huge new entitlement for 
politicians. Here we are facing some very serious financial problems in 
this country most of which from the standpoint of fiscal policy of the 
Federal Government are tied to entitlement programs and their explosion 
of costs.
  In fact, I had the good fortune of--maybe unfortunate good fortune--
serving on a group called the Entitlement Commission appointed by the 
President, the purpose of which is to review how we can try to get some 
controls over entitlement costs.
  One of the conclusions we have come to as the Commission, one of the 
many, is that if you look out in the future at where this country is 
going financially, the Federal Government is going financially, we see 
that by the early part of the next century four major entitlement 
programs will have absorbed the entire income of the Federal 
Government, which is an extraordinary situation because after those 
four major entitlement programs have used up all the income of the 
Federal Government--things such as national defense, education, 
research, road construction, bridge construction, buildings, capital 
activities of any kind, all of these various programs and many, many 
social programs, worker training programs, social programs for the 
needy--all these programs will be unable to be funded because four 
programs have used up the entire Treasury. The four programs are the 
health care entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, 
Federal retirement, and interest on the Federal debt.
  Yet, with that staring us in the face, we as a Congress continue to 
consider putting on the books more and more entitlements. This is 
another one that we are considering. In the health care bill, which was 
recently proposed and which is now the pending regular order of this 
body, there is proposed in the Mitchell bill somewhere around seven new 
entitlements depending on how you define them. But they represent in 
the vicinity of $1 trillion of new spending over a period.
  Now in addition to that huge explosion proposed in that bill, we see 
entitlement for politicians being proposed in this bill. How incredibly 
outrageous is that? I mean, at least the entitlements that are already 
on the books that are being proposed in some of these other plans are 
for citizens of this country who are in need in many instances or at 
least arguably deserve some help from the Federal Government in many 
instances, although in many instances we may not be able to afford it 
as much as we would like.
  But an entitlement program for politicians really takes a great deal 
of brass on the part of our institution to be proposing. But we are 
doing it in this bill and the practical effect of it is a heck of a lot 
of money will be spent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GREGG. I am happy to yield to my friend and colleague from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. First, let me particularly thank my friend and 
colleague from New Hampshire. I believe yesterday was his anniversary.
  Mr. GREGG. Yes. It ended at 12 o'clock. I left this morning at 4. I 
am not sure my wife understood that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Each speaker has brought his own sort of unique view 
of this issue. I noticed the expressions on the face of the Senator 
from New Hampshire as he referred to entitlement programs for 
politicians and how the public might feel about it. I thought I would 
share this. I may have mentioned it to my friend off the floor at some 
point. But I have seen some recent survey data on this.
  Suffice it to say, that it would be more popular for a Member of this 
body to vote to raise its own pay substantially than to vote for this 
bill. Yet, the majority must I guess assume that this is a terrific 
idea to be trying to push through an entitlement program for us here at 
the 11th hour this year.
  I can only conclude that we must see the world differently or live on 
two different planets. I am not quite sure. But I think the Senator 
from New Hampshire is right on the mark at this early hour raising his 
eyebrows that anyone could conclude in this 11th hour of this session 
right before this election this turkey would be greeted with 
gratification by our constituents.
  So I thank him for pitching in. I think the other side may have had 
some doubt about whether we ought to kill this bill. I hope the doubt 
is waning. This is the first of three motions. I had completely 
forgotten the motion to proceed to the ultimate conference report.
  So we will be here. I just wanted to really express my appreciation 
to the Senator from New Hampshire for taking one of the least pleasant 
hours of this 30-hour marathon. I thank him so much.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I would like to 
especially express my appreciation for the effort he has done which has 
been extraordinary in focusing the light on this bill. The Senator from 
Kentucky made a superb point. If you explain this bill to anybody on 
the street who happens to be trying to do their job and get through 
their day, but obviously therefore is not focused on a piece of 
legislation like campaign finance reform in the Congress of the United 
States, but if you take the time and have the opportunity to explain it 
to them that this will have this huge entitlement for politicians which 
will come out of the taxpayers' pocket, they are stunned, they are 
shocked.
  What the Senator from Kentucky has done through this process through 
orchestrating 30 hours of debate, which the Senator from Kentucky has 
personally been managing and has been willing to handle almost 7 hours 
of it personally and has done it brilliantly, has shined the light on 
the issue--by shining light on the issue I think he has shown the folly 
of it, the foolishness of it, and the crass political attempt to gain 
political advantage by this bill.
  I certainly congratulate him for his extraordinary efforts. I am not 
only happy to participate in this cloture discussion, this period of 
post-cloture discussion, but as the Senator goes forward with his other 
three, I look forward to having the opportunity to do that also and 
feel very strongly that he is on the right track in trying to inform 
the American public of how ridiculous this is and the foolishness of 
this bill, and the fact that the bill is structured not to create 
effective campaign finance reform but the bill is basically structured 
for the purpose of gaining a political advantage and tilting the 
playing field as I said earlier of what amounts to about a 90-degree 
angle.
  So I thank the Senator from Kentucky for going through this, and I am 
amazed the Senator is still awake considering the hours he has been 
putting in this evening, all night. And I am impressed, to say the 
least, by his ability to carry such a heavy and long day.
  As I was saying, this entitlement program is just a shock. It is 
beyond comprehension how we can move down the road of a brand new 
entitlement at a time when pressure is being put on this Government so 
aggressively by other spending programs which we already have on the 
books and where we are putting ourselves as a Government in a position 
of essentially mortgaging, as has been said before, the future of the 
next generation, as we spend these huge amounts of dollars which we do 
not have in the Treasury of the Federal Government for the purposes of 
creating new programs, and in this instance a crass new program, the 
sole purpose of which is to reelect members of the party which is in 
the majority.
  And, of course, it is equally ironic that not only will the taxpayers 
pay for this but the next generation will pay for this because the 
money to pay for the entitlement is not there, and so it is going to 
have to be borrowed or taxed, and in borrowing for that leaflet that is 
put out on the street that is printed that says I am the best person to 
elect, which is going to be paid for with taxpayers' funds, a little 
piece of paper that has a life span of maybe 2 seconds as it is handed 
to the person walking down the street, that piece of paper is going to 
incur a bill which is going to have to be paid by the children of the 
people who are voting. And what an outrage it is to put that sort of 
burden on the next generation for the purposes of creating a political 
fund from the taxpayers to take care of politicians.
  These bills set conditions that if met will result in a variety of 
benefits to each candidate, and as has been mentioned a great deal of 
it cannot be mentioned too much in my opinion--benefits which are paid 
for by the taxpayer. The benefits include a communication voucher, a 
50-percent broadcast discount, which by the way is a huge unfunded 
mandate.
  At some point, we have to face up to the fact that we cannot as a 
Congress continue to pass on these unfunded mandates. We pass them on 
to local and State governments. We pass them on to private investors, 
the private sector. We pass them on to private employers and now here 
is a whole new idea. We are going to just pick one special industry and 
we are going to hit them with an unfunded mandate through a broadcast 
discount.
  Why should a local radio station, which is probably, at least in New 
Hampshire--in many instances, most of our radio stations are small. We 
have some big ones, and we have some that are owned, some fairly large 
groups of stations, but the vast majority of radio stations in New 
Hampshire are just stations started by somebody who had a real interest 
in radio. Maybe they were a ham radio operator at one time or something 
but they started their radio stations because it had always been their 
dream, and it is no different than the local restaurant or grocery 
store. It is a business run by usually a small group of people and 
sometimes just one family. And it is a tough business sometimes. It is 
tough to sell the advertising and make the station work. It is 
difficult to do it especially in hard economic times. Sometimes 
advertising becomes the first thing cut in hard economic times.
  Why should we say to that person who runs a small radio station, or 
any radio station for that matter, well, we, the politicians, have 
decided, we here in Congress have decided you are going to support us, 
that you are going to have to give us a 50-percent discount.
  What right do we have to go to these people and tax them like that? 
Because that is what it is. An unfunded mandate is a tax. We are saying 
you specific class of people, you people who happen to be the owners of 
radio stations must bear the burden of our desire to have the capacity 
to use your airways that you are going to have to pay for--we are not 
going to have to pay for, you are going to have to pay, you who run the 
radio stations.
  Well, the argument is it is public trust, public trust in receiving 
the license for the radio station or television station, and I do not 
argue with that, there is a public trust in that. But with that public 
trust should not come a huge unfunded mandate or new tax burden. There 
are clearly a lot of things which are required to be done of radio 
stations in the public interest, but this is an extraordinary one. The 
cost of this would be overwhelming to many stations, and they have to 
take the advertising. They do not have any choice under our laws. And 
as a result many of them would be, I suspect, confronted, small 
stations, with severe financial problems as a result of this unfunded 
mandate.
  In addition, there is a mailing discount. There is a matching fund to 
counteract independent expenditures. There is matching funds to 
counteract proponents who spend over the voluntary spending limit. How 
much is all this going to cost?
  Well, we really do not know. Nobody appears to have been willing to 
tell us what it is going to cost. But I have to presume it is going to 
be an extraordinary amount of money. And where is the money going to 
come from? Once again, it is going to come from unfunded mandates which 
are taxes. It is going to come from direct taxes, and it is going to 
come from taxes on the next generation because we are going to have to 
borrow a lot of it.
  The effect of how we calculate this cost is hard to tell. But we have 
an estimate from the Democrats of $90 million to provide matching funds 
for House candidates, and $90 million seems rather low to me. The 
figure I believe comes closer to $174 million, if only Republican and 
Democratic nominees in the House races accept the funding. You have to 
remember in many States other people will be qualifying for these 
funds. In New Hampshire, for example, we have a qualified Libertarian 
Party, and I know that in New York they have a variety of parties. You 
can never keep track of how many different parties there are in New 
York.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GREGG. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We know in the Presidential, the enticement of the 
public subsidy has produced candidates with such well known names as 
Lenora Fulani and Lyndon LaRouche. I think it is reasonable to assume--
Lyndon LaRouche, by the way, received tax funds for President while he 
was in prison. Lenora Fulani, a resident of New York--well, we do not 
call people Communists anymore in this country but she calls herself 
that--got a couple of million. I think it is reasonable to assume, as 
the Senator from New Hampshire is pointing out, that virtually anybody 
in America, once they discover, who may have looked at the mirror in 
the morning and said, gee, I think I see a Congressman or 
Congresswoman, when confronted with the potential of having the 
taxpayers fund that trip could find it incredibly enticing. So with 
regard to the estimate of what this might well cost, I think it will be 
a broad industry. And, of course, the flip side of that as all these 
tax dollars go out to all these candidates, of course, it is going to 
allow for a Federal Election Commission the size of the Veterans' 
Administration.
  It is an interesting question the Senator raises, about just how much 
could this cost. We have a lot of experience with estimating the cost 
of Federal programs over the last quarter century, all of them for a 
much better cause than this one and all of them the estimates have 
dramatically been on the short side. So I think the Senator is raising 
an interesting question here. We speculate as to what the ultimate cost 
of this new entitlement program for us may be to our grandchildren.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his comments. I 
think they are well taken, especially with regard to Lenora Fulani. I 
am not sure I am pronouncing her name correctly. That situation comes 
to mind because in New Hampshire where we have the first in the Nation 
primary, she qualified for the funds as a result of some of her 
activities up there, and there was no question but in my opinion she 
was involved in this election for the purposes of getting the campaign 
financing money. And where was it spent? How was it spent? One 
suspects--there are no limits on how it can be spent. Obviously, if she 
wanted to spend it on herself or on her staff in a very lavish way or 
on anything else--and I am not saying she did, but the implication is, 
or the opportunity for abuse here is extraordinary.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator further yield about Ms. Fulani?
  Mr. GREGG. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. As we attempt to keep ourselves awake at this time in 
the morning. This is the Washington City Paper. I am not quite sure 
what that is. It is one of the many entities in America using the first 
amendment, which will still be available to everyone except us after 
this bill passes. There is a whole article here called, Lenora and the 
Money-Go-Round or How the 1992 Presidential Campaign of Lenora Fulani 
and * * * Dr. Fred Newman Reaped $2 Million in Federal Election 
Commission Matching Funds, a whole article about the scam of Lenora 
Fulani under the Presidential system.
  Just multiply that conservatively times 535, and I think the 
insomniacs who may be watching us at this time this morning may get the 
message of what kind of massive Federal program the Senator from New 
Hampshire is discussing.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I did point out prior 
to the Senator's speaking that we are on prime time in New England 
right now so those folks, I am sure, are very sharp and on top of what 
we are saying. But the Senator is right. The opportunity to game this 
system once it is set up is extraordinary. And who is being gamed? The 
American taxpayer is the one who is going to get gamed here because 
every time somebody decides to pursue elective office, not so much to 
obtain the office because they do not have an opportunity to win but in 
order to obtain the additional funds that are available to them, it is 
the taxpayer that is going to pick up the tab.
  And, of course, on top of that outrage is the fact that--and this has 
been discussed here a great deal--is the fact that you are compelling 
the taxpayer who works very hard for their money, the person working 
at--there may be a few people watching us right now, and I suppose some 
of them are folks working at all-night truck stops or early morning 
breakfast spots, and they are waitresses or they are cooks and a 
percentage of their wages is taken out every day for taxes. And those 
taxes are hard earned. And yet they are going to be asked to take those 
taxes by our estimates just in this one area of the match and end up 
funding people who they do not agree with, people who they vehemently 
disagree with. And what an outrage that is. How unconscionable is it 
for us as a government in our arrogance to say to somebody who is 
working hard and maybe just barely making it but still paying taxes 
from that hard earned dollar that they are making is going to fund 
somebody who they cannot stand politically or maybe personally or for 
any other reason.
  That is to me unconscionable, that sort of compulsion to put on the 
American taxpayer but that is what we are doing here. We are saying 
that the taxpayers--we have already done it in the Federal election 
system unfortunately. The abuse there is obvious through this Lenora 
Fulani situation. I think there was also somebody who called himself 
Chief Red Cloud who may have qualified for Federal funds who was--I do 
not even think he was of Indian ancestry. He just used that term in 
order to get name recognition out there. But the concept is that our 
tax dollars, hard earned tax dollars, are going to be taken from most 
American citizens who pay their taxes because they believe in 
government. They believe in this country.
  But the fact those taxes once taken are going to be allocated in this 
way is really outrageous. And when you talk about how much money is 
being spent here--try to put it in context--when we talk about millions 
of dollars or billions of dollars that we talk about around here--
people cannot appreciate it.
  But the amount of money, tax dollars, that will be spent on this one 
part of this campaign finance reform, tax dollars taken from the 
taxpayer and reallocated by the terms of the majority party in this 
Congress, that amount of money would almost run the State of New 
Hampshire for 6 months. You say New Hampshire is a small State. It is a 
small State, but still we could use that money to run the State of New 
Hampshire for 6 months and I am sure we could use it for a lot of other 
good things that would be positive throughout this country. Who knows, 
$200 million, which is one of the estimates here for one of these 
accounts? That is a lot of money. Think of what you could do just right 
here in the District of Columbia with $200 million in improving the 
school system, which is disastrous in this city, or getting more police 
on the street right here in the city of Washington.
  So, there are so many more priorities that make so much more sense 
and which are so less contentious than taking people's money and 
allocating it to somebody who they totally disagree with politically. 
That is a very critical issue here.
  The Senator from Kentucky has talked about it eloquently earlier--
yesterday, I think it was. The issue of first amendment rights and the 
impact on the first amendment relative to this issue of taking from 
somebody and giving to somebody else and limiting the ability of people 
to participate in the process through this whole scam or scheme--
actually it is a scam that has been put forward in this bill. So it is 
all tied together and it is an outrage that this would even be 
considered. But it is being considered.
  Initially I was talking about costs and I think it is critical to 
understand that we are facing a $4.3 trillion debt right now which we 
cannot pay for. We are facing this year a budget deficit of $200 
billion. And this is just more piling on, because not only will taxes 
be taken from the American taxpayer and inappropriately applied to 
people they do not support, but it will be taxes which I have mentioned 
we cannot afford. And it will be a new entitlement which we cannot 
afford.
  I think it is also important as we discuss this to discuss the issue 
of PAC contributions. Because they are obviously a flash point for 
political activity. In my discussion I went into a little background on 
PAC contributions. But I think it is important to go into some more 
detail on them because, of course, they become the whipping boy. PAC's 
have become the whipping boy around here. And their usage has been 
unfortunate in many instances.
  The Senate bill as it was passed would have banned all PAC 
contributions. I guess if you do not like PAC's you cannot ask for much 
more than that. This was a Republican amendment, this proposal, to ban 
all the PAC contributions. But the House rejected this. They rejected 
this and they included the $10,000 PAC contribution cycle which we 
presently have.
  You wonder why they rejected it? Basically they rejected it because 
House campaigns live on PAC contributions. I suppose it is unfair for 
us to judge our colleagues in the House and say they should, they 
should not, pursue PAC contributions in so aggressive a way. But in 
1992, 52 percent of the campaign receipts of the Democratic House 
Members were PAC contributions.
  If you are going to talk about campaign finance reform, how can you 
talk about it and not address the PAC issue. Yet they have done that. I 
think it just shows how fallacious this bill is, how truly skewed this 
bill is. This is not an attempt to reform campaign financing. This is 
an attempt to use the Federal law to improve the capacity of the 
Democratic leadership and the Democratic membership--especially of the 
House--to maintain their position. As such, it is an extraordinarily 
partisan bill with very little fairness in it.
  PAC's give an overwhelming advantage to incumbents. All you need to 
do is look at the statistics of that. PAC contributions--86 percent of 
PAC contributions go to incumbents running for reelection; $161 million 
in 1992 went to congressional candidates but of that, only 15 percent, 
$24 million went for candidates running for open seats. So you can see 
most of the PAC contributions are going to winners.
  When you look at some of the funds that have been developed by some 
Members of the Congress who are in seats which are rarely if ever 
contested, you recognize that PAC contributions many times go to 
candidates who do not have any opposition to speak of to begin with. 
Yet they obtain huge amounts of funds because they are sure winners. 
And the American people are upset about that.
  So, if you want to really reform the campaign situation then you 
ought to level the playing field and eliminate all the PAC's, which is 
what the Senate has proposed. But most important you need to address 
the issue of soft money because soft money is raised for and spent on 
activities conducted outside the Federal election laws. It is money 
spent on behalf of a specific campaign or slate of candidates or 
political party. Soft money is not subject to regulations or limits 
under Federal law. It is undisclosed and it is unlimited.
  The problem is not with the activities that soft money supports, 
phone banks and ``get-out-the-voter'' efforts and bumper stickers. The 
problem is with the lack of disclosure and limits. If you shine light 
on the issue and show where the money is coming from and who is getting 
it and how it is coming out, then the public can make a decision on it, 
as they do to a large degree right now in the PAC area. But when you 
have the money coming in the back door and going through basically a 
number of different committees and being lost in the shuffle, it is 
impossible to adequately explain where it is coming from.
  Basically there are two types of soft money. There is party money, 
which comes either from Republican or Democratic Party, and then there 
is nonparty money, which comes from labor unions and tax exempt 501(c) 
groups. The real problem is not the political party soft money, 
however, but the unregulated, unreported, unlimited, special interest 
soft money spent by the labor unions and other groups operating with a 
tax exempt status.
  There is a fundamental difference between the two types of soft 
money. That is political parties, on the whole, do not have a 
legislative agenda. The only requirement for support is the candidate 
be a viable candidate for the party. There is no issue litmus test, 
usually.
  This is not the case with sources of soft money. We have seen all 
sorts of litmus test soft money situations, whether it has been labor-
union driven or tax-exempt special-interest-group driven. Again, that 
is fine except that nobody knows it is out there. Nobody can find it. 
Nobody can effectively trace it. And it comes in huge amounts.
  If you do not support people who pour the soft money in, then you 
find Members of Congress being put under threats. These threats carry a 
lot of clout.
  It has been estimated that more than $100 million in special interest 
money is spent in each election cycle. This money allows the groups to 
exert a tremendous influence on the electoral process. Labor union soft 
money comes mainly from compulsory labor union dues. The National Right 
To Work Committee estimates they receive $5 billion annually from 
compulsory union dues. This money subsidizes PAC overhead costs and 
allows 100 percent worth of contributions from union members to go 
directly to candidates.
  On the Republican side--I know the Senator from Kentucky has been 
active on this issue, has led the fight to close this special interest 
soft money loophole by attempting to codify the Beck decision by 
requiring disclosure and limits in soft money. But does this bill do 
that? No, it does not do that. Why does it not do that? Because this 
bill is not meant to improve the situation. This bill is not meant to 
level the playing field or to make for greater disclosure or to make 
the issue of campaign finance fairer. This bill is meant to protect 
those things that work for one party and make sure that the other party 
does not have the plans to be on a level playing field with the party 
that is in the majority.
  My colleagues may remember, and there has been a lot of discussion 
about this, that the Supreme Court held in the Beck case that Mr. Beck 
had the right to a refund for the portion of his dues to the 
Communications Workers of America used for political purposes. The 
Republicans were successful in adding amendments to address the soft 
money issue and to provide some disclosure of nonparty soft money. 
Democratic Members of the Congress accepted these provisions only to 
gain final passage of the bill. It is certain these positions will face 
a hostile environment in conference.
  With regard to party soft money, both the Republican and Democratic 
National Committee raised money to support the Federal and State and 
local candidates. Money raised to support Federal candidates is hard 
money. Soft money is money raised to support State and local candidates 
but which indirectly benefits Federal candidates and may or may not be 
covered by State law but it is not covered by Federal law.
  Many States have campaign laws that allow parties to spend 
considerably more money for voter registration and for their party 
building activities. Republicans have been successful in raising money 
and have benefited somewhat more from party soft money than Democrats. 
Democrats who traditionally benefit more from labor union soft money 
are also benefiting since the election of President Clinton, more than 
in the past, with party soft money.
  Given these facts, it is not surprising the Democratic proposal is to 
restrict soft money and focus entirely on the party soft money while 
leaving the pro-Democratic soft money or labor money untouched.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a further observation?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. David Broder, whom I think we all agree is the premier 
political reporter of our time, opposes this turkey of a bill and the 
reason is what it does to the parties. He said what these people--I am 
paraphrasing his observations --but he said what these people ought to 
be doing is strengthening parties, not weakening parties. And the 
effort to get at so-called soft money in this bill is only party soft 
money. The other kind is nonparty soft money which I believe the 
Senator from New Hampshire has alluded to which is not touched at all 
by this bill. That is expenditures on behalf of labor unions or 
environmental groups or others on behalf of candidates. But the only 
point the Senator from Kentucky interjects to make is, by what good 
government standard do we weaken the American two-party system? What 
positive goal is achieved by crafting a piece of legislation that is 
dreaded, feared, and despised not just at the Republican National 
Committee but I am telling you they feel the same way over at the 
Democratic National Committee about this bill. And here we are trying 
to hurt the American two-party system. Maybe in addition to David 
Broder that is one possible explanation for the fact that virtually 
every political scientist in America thinks this bill is awful.
  So, you have the academic community against it, you have the two 
parties against it. Although at the DNC they have the gag rule on and 
they cannot say it, we all know it. It is a fact. You have the premier 
political commentator of our time, David Broder, against it. Yet we 
persist in trying to do this.
  So I just thank, again, my friend from New Hampshire for bringing up 
these issues, they are so important. And one of the reasons in addition 
to killing this bill--for which we make no apologies, that is what this 
is about--but it is also about making sure the public knows more about 
what folks were trying to do here at the 11th hour of this Congress.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Kentucky, because he does, 
obviously, understand the nitty-gritty of what is really going on here 
better than anybody else. His initiative in undertaking this discussion 
has been, I think, to inform everybody else, not only the Senate, but 
in the country as to what is going on. I think he touches on a core 
point here. The support for this bill does not exist outside of the 
cadre of people in this Congress who want to be reelected and who are 
in the majority party.
  When you cite people like Mr. Broder, who I have immense respect for, 
but who is clearly a gentleman who comes from a liberal persuasion and 
from the commentator ranks--and he is of enormous capabilities and I 
appreciate his ideas immensely--as being in opposition, when you cite 
the fact that people who have studied campaign finance reform across 
the country--and a variety of newspaper people beyond that have looked 
at this. Even Roll Call, which you would think might be inclined to 
support something like this because it is an institutional magazine, 
stated its severe reservations. I would like to read that editorial in 
a second.
  It is clear that what is going on here is an attempt, in the last 
days of Congress when so much goes on that you cannot keep your eye on 
it, when so much legislation is passed, and a lot of it bad, that in 
the last days of Congress, they are trying to put through a bill that 
is essentially an attempt to take the playing field and tilt it 
dramatically, an abuse of the minority through the majority process.
  The fact that the Senator from Kentucky decided to stand at the 
bridge and be the Horatio of this battle is something that deserves 
great credit. I expect he will be successful. I will certainly do all I 
can to support him in his efforts. Along with what he is saying, let me 
just read from the Roll Call editorial of August 16, because I think it 
is relevant to the concerns here:

       Speaking of Gridlock. You would think campaign finance 
     reform would be a sure bet for passage this year. President 
     Clinton listed it as a top priority. The Senate has actually 
     passed a reform bill. House leaders say they want to enact a 
     bill this year. Good Government groups demand reform, and 
     Ross Perot insists on it.
       It is just a matter of time, right? Wrong. Just as it did 
     in the last session, Congress is contriving to look busy on 
     the subject of campaign finance reform while in fact getting 
     nothing done. In the 1992 campaign for reform, public 
     financing actually passed, but it will be a charade. 
     Democrats knew President Bush would veto it and he did. This 
     year, with a Democratic President, Congress must find other 
     ways to avoid action. However, should a bill actually pass 
     and be signed into law, it is likely to contain a poison 
     pill--an unconstitutional provision that would induce 
     candidates to accept voluntary spending limits by taxing 
     their contribution if they do not. So that is what a veto 
     delaying gridlock can accomplish as well.

  So what this editorial is saying is they want campaign finance reform 
that is real, campaign finance reform that does not create a spending 
limit which would essentially end up taxing the American taxpayer and, 
more importantly, create a situation where you have basically tilted 
the playing field so unconscionably against one of the parties and 
against the basic right of free speech in the citizenry that you end up 
with a situation----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. If I can finish that sentence.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I want to, again, thank my friend from New Hampshire 
for getting up at this early hour and coming to the rescue, so to 
speak.
  Senator Bond is here. He will be out momentarily.
  I just want to say that this has been a most extraordinary 
experience. We have had more people seeking to participate in this 
effort than we have time. Who would have thought that we would even 
have backups in the morning. But for the first team that came in for 
the morning, my special gratitude. Go home and get some sleep, and we 
will use you in round two.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator for organizing this. I hope he makes 
it clear that the support which he has for this is there because there 
is very strong, legitimate concerns amongst many Members of this Senate 
that this bill is a terrible bill and it should not be forced on the 
taxpayers of this country.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend.
  I see the Senator from Missouri is up and bright-eyed this morning, 
ready to go to work.
  Therefore, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Hampshire.
  I express my deep appreciation to my colleague from Kentucky for his 
leadership role he provided to this body in assuring that when we deal 
with campaign finance reform or other types of reform, it is meaningful 
reform, real reform and not posturing.
  Nor, as I say to my friend from Kentucky, if our friends are watching 
back in Kentucky or Missouri, this is normally the time they would be 
giving the farm reports and the weather--I was unable to pick those up 
as I came in. We appreciate those who have stayed with us, particularly 
the staff of the Senate, who have been faithful as always in performing 
their duties, and my special appreciation to the Chair.
  Mr. President, the last couple of months have been very revealing to 
Americans, as they are getting a close-up look at how legislation is 
often handled around here. They have seen Congress take up thousand-
page bills that few have seen until they are plopped down on our desks 
the day before the vote. They have seen weekend marathon conferences 
produce huge, multibillion dollar bills that Members are forced to vote 
on with little or no time to consider what they are doing. And they 
have watched with great dismay as provisions never before seen or voted 
on suddenly appear in a final bill.
  A few years ago, I was involved in one of those activities when we 
found that we passed a highway bill and it turned up that it had a 
courthouse in it. It is a long story as to what happened with respect 
to that, but it was a classic example that the people in my State have 
remembered as an example of what happens when this body and the other 
body do not have adequate time to reflect upon and to be fully aware of 
all provisions in a measure.
  I have been impressed by the movement around the country, seeking 
pledges that Members read the bill first before they vote. I have been 
besieged by people in my State who have stopped me on the street, who 
have stopped me at the shopping centers, to say do not pass anything 
you do not read.
  Well, the fact of the matter is, up here, we have so many long, 
lengthy complicated bills that are put together at the last minute, 
even some that are put together after they have passed, that it is very 
difficult to get all of the bills read.
  When I was Governor of Missouri, I served two terms, and I had to 
decide whether to put my signature on each bill that came to my desk. I 
have a great deal of sympathy with those who argue that Members of 
Congress should take the time to read and understand the bills which 
come before them. I found that while the bills were shorter, it may be 
that in the State legislatures, we did not have the staff, and that 
makes me think that perhaps if we cut back on the staff, there would 
not be the people to draft the lengthy bills. Nevertheless, I had the 
experience, as Governor, of pointing out to sponsors of legislation 
that drafting errors had caused significant problems in the measures 
that were passed by the legislative body there. On several occasions, 
at the request of the sponsor, I vetoed measures and formal signing 
ceremonies because they had contradictory, conflicting or totally 
unintended consequences.
  Well, as we come down to the final days of the session and the time 
dwindles away, more and more bills are coming before this body in a 
shorter and shorter timeframe, and the possibility of mischief becomes 
greater and greater. This is, of course, where we find ourselves today. 
Campaign reform is a catchy title, and when anybody starts off by 
saying ``I am for campaign reform,'' you always see the group you are 
speaking to smiling and thinking I am sure it needs to be reformed. But 
I caution my colleagues and friends to beware about those who wave the 
word ``reform,'' because too many times it means just the opposite.
  After all, it was some 15 months ago that the Senate passed a bill 
and 10 months ago that the House passed its bill. So why has it taken 
us so long to do anything? And now, with only days remaining in the 
session, why is this issue sprung back to life? Well, the easy answer 
is that the only way to get something like this passed is to ram it 
through at the end of the session, when people are actually afraid of 
being against quote ``reform'' and do not actually have the time to 
read the bill itself, which brings us to a basic question: What is 
campaign finance reform anyway?
  To the casual observer, it is simply needed changes in the laws which 
govern how campaigns are run. Who can contribute? How much? And who and 
what must be disclosed? Should we require a sweet, older person who 
gives $5 to fill out a form, or should we just report contributions 
over $250? Can companies or corporations give? What about unions? What 
about a group of individuals who band together, can they give as a 
group? How about individuals or children? Should there be different 
limits for the amount people can give if they are in the State or the 
district of the person who is seeking that particular office? Or should 
there be a higher limit for them than for those who are not 
constituents, who come from outside the State, or who come from a 
different district in the State?
  Reform also raises questions about how outside groups should be 
regulated. Should they and can they, under the Constitution, be 
regulated at all? Should labor unions or organizations like the NRA or 
the Abortion Rights League be able to spend huge sums for or against 
their favorite candidates, and what if anything should be disclosed? 
Should they be allowed unlimited expenditures as long as they do not 
coordinate with a candidate they support? What is coordination anyway? 
Does it mean you cannot use the same printers, or the same pollsters? 
Does it mean you cannot coordinate or plot strategy? How many 
overlapping people can there be between a campaign and a so-called 
independent expenditure? Is any kind of coordination possible or 
permissible? When does it become not an independent expenditure?
  As we can see, the questions quickly outstrip the easy answers. Then 
when you add in a wild card in this case, unlike, unfortunately, most 
other pieces of legislation, Congress will actually be affected by the 
provisions of the bill. That is a rare and unusual circumstance--too 
rare, I might add. Well, you can understand why the issue never quite 
seems to be resolved as easily as it should be.
  I want to touch on part of this issue in more detail. We have to 
remember that whenever Congress takes up campaign finance laws, not 
only are we affecting potential constituents and contributors, but we 
are literally changing the rules of our own reelection game. When this 
happens, our constituents, the people of America, better be watching 
very closely. Yes, this is when sunshine and full airing and full 
disclosure is particularly important. I do not shy away from the 
responsibility.
  We are required to pass laws and, yes, in this case we are required 
to deal with legislation that affects us. I think the best way we can 
do that is to do so openly with full disclosure, so that our people, 
our constituents, voters from other States, the citizens of this 
country know full well what we are doing,
  then we can answer to them. We can say, yes, we handled your trust in 
a manner that is worthy of that trust, or they can say we do not like 
what you did but at least they ought to know what we are doing when we 
are changing the rules of our own reelection game. The leadership 
always tries to accomplish a political goal of not hurting themselves 
and their party. This means that Democrats have traditionally opposed 
changes which they view are hurting their reelection chances.
  I would be the first to admit, and certainly no one would deny, that 
Republicans have done likewise.
  Yes, there is always the temptation to deal with campaign finance 
reform in a way that will be beneficial to our party or to the 
situation in which we find ourselves. And that is one of the reasons we 
need some tests, some standards. Even the simplest of reforms is 
difficult to pass.
  Now, a few years ago--and I thought this was one of the better things 
that our leadership has done on a joint basis--a bipartisan commission 
was set up to try to come up with changes that did not tilt the playing 
field toward one party or the other.
  The campaign finance reform report to the majority leader and the 
minority leader of the U.S. Senate--which happened to be delivered on 
my birthday in 1990 by a campaign finance reform panel of Herbert 
Alexander, Jan Witold Baran, Robert Bauer, David Magleby, Richard Moe, 
and Larry Sabato--have, I think, some very, very important guidelines 
that this body should consider and that the people of America should 
consider when they are judging the effectiveness of campaign finance 
reform. Does it meet the tests that the people of America have a right 
to expect?
  To quote a portion from this report delivered March 6, 1990, in the 
introduction they say--and I am going to select pieces of the report. I 
am not going to give the entire report but just the relevant portions 
of the report. In the introduction the group of distinguished outside 
observers said:

       You have asked us to consider the issues involved in 
     campaign finance reform in an effort to ``stimulate 
     discussion and perhaps even break the legislative logjam in 
     Congress.''

  I would add parenthetically that while they did an excellent job, I 
do not think that we have yet seen the legislative logjam broken, 
because their good advice was not followed, and as a result that is why 
we are in this situation early this beautiful morning.
  But to return to the report, it said:

       Each member of this task force has devoted years to the 
     issue of campaign finance, either in political or academic 
     life or in law practices, and each has brought to our 
     discussions strongly-held views on certain of these issues. 
     On some of these issues, these views were very different. All 
     of us, however, took seriously the charge contained in the 
     letter to us dated February 8, 1990, which called upon our 
     most creative efforts to consider alternatives to pending 
     proposals for reform * * * all of us believe that the overall 
     package of reforms is balanced and stakes out a constructive 
     middle ground on many of the issues which have proven most 
     divisive over the years.

  Further on in the report they say--

     * * * readiness to make repeatedly changes in the laws 
     invites a struggle for partisan advantage which is waged in 
     the name of sound public policy but primarily in the interest 
     of successful electoral competition.

  The authors of the report go on to say:

       This is a dangerous trend. Because the law in question 
     affects fundamental rights of political speech and 
     participation, it should be amended only with great care to 
     achieve narrowly, neutrally defined policy objectives.

  And to that, Mr. President, I would add an amen. They have pointed 
out precisely the danger that we are dealing with in our discussions 
here today. They have warned us against legislation which seeks to gain 
narrow partisan advantage by continually changing election laws seeking 
to give one party or the other advantage at the polls, rather than 
seeking to ensure the effective operation of the political system and 
the selection of candidates.
  Returning to the report, they say:

       Accordingly, throughout our deliberations, we made every 
     effort to define the goals which are properly pursued in 
     reform of the law at the present time. These are, in our 
     view:

  No. 1--

       Avoidance of substantial danger that political 
     contributions and their solicitation will unduly influence 
     the official conduct of elected officials.

  No. 2--

       Allowing robust political debate and activity, but seeking, 
     where possible and constitutional, to encourage the 
     development of sources of funding which expand political 
     participation and limit the potential of undue influence or 
     corruption.

  No. 3--

       Enhancing public confidence in campaign financing by 
     structuring a system which is comprehensive, well-enforced 
     and, perhaps above all else, characterized by timely and 
     thorough public disclosure.

  Mr. President, I highlight that word ``disclosure.'' I will come back 
to it shortly, but I think they have hit on the ultimate means of 
assuring effective campaign finance reform, and that is through 
disclosure so that the people of America, the voters, our constituents, 
will know how Members of this body and the House have been elected and 
whether they have done so with any evidence or any impropriety 
suggested by the means of running their campaign.
  The fourth principle is, according to this group of experts:

       Accounting for and neutralizing as much as possible 
     disproportionate competitive impacts of any reform, such as 
     impacts on challengers, independent candidates, minor 
     political parties or between major parties.

  Next.

       Structuring a system of enforcement which produces timely 
     results on major issues, avoiding excessive or punitive 
     attention to minor infractions and seeking as much to advise 
     political participants on avoiding violations as to 
     determining and pushing such violations.

  I think those items provide a good test by which to judge proposed 
political campaign reform.
  Yes, we do have to have a system of enforcement. I believe that most 
Members of this body on both sides of the aisle and in the other House 
want to follow the law. For the occasional person who wants to get 
around the law, however, there has to be a system of enforcement. For 
the most part, I believe that the bodies that enforce these laws now 
are called on most frequently to interpret the law, so that there can 
be voluntary compliance which I believe occurs in a vast majority of 
cases.
  Now, the report lists a number of items which I think are very 
important, and I will jump to page 41 of this report which includes a 
summary of recommendations. I want to point out that this body of 
experts sought out by the majority and minority leaders have proposed 
campaign finance reform that provides no new entitlement, no taxpayer-
financed boondoggle, no Government takeover of the funding of 
campaigns. Here is what they recommended.
  No. 1--

       Flexible spending limits, which are reasonably high, do not 
     limit significant party support * * *

  I think that is very important--

       Do not limit significant party support and limited 
     donations from in-State contributors * * *
       Enhanced role for the political parties for research and 
     certain defined types of voter registration and get-out-the-
     vote activity and for the acceptance of individual 
     contributions.

  I might note here parenthetically that in my State, in Missouri, 
there has been recently passed a measure which does significantly 
interfere with the ability of parties to make political contributions. 
You would ask, would that happen? Well, it happened in my State I 
believe because my party, in the minority in the Missouri General 
Assembly, has been very effective about encouraging party activity to 
assist and support candidates for local State and Federal offices. I 
think they have made the mistake of trying to cut parties out of the 
political process because it was to the partisan advantage of the party 
holding the majority in the legislative body to do so.
  I would cite to my colleagues the work and the many writings of a 
gentleman I respect greatly, David Broder, who has written in the 
newspapers across the country and in books about the importance of 
maintaining parties as part of the political process. He has encouraged 
that we strengthen rather than weaken the role of political parties, 
and I believe that his writings, his conclusions reflect a well thought 
out view and a well reasoned view that parties can provide some 
cohesion to the political process.
  Do they provide discipline? No, not much these days. But at least 
they provide a cohesive body of views and direction that can be very 
helpful to the citizens in determining what direction they want their 
Government to go, which party do they want to have in control.
  But I digress. Let me return to the summaries of recommendations. The 
second recommendation of this body of distinguished observers of the 
political process was:

       Individual contribution limits increased modestly and the 
     annual limit reexamined.

  No. 1, they say:

       Political action committees may contribute up to a 
     specified percentage of candidate's spending limit.

  In this they recommend continuing political action committees. We 
have heard a lot of talks about political action committees, but 
frankly have been unwilling to say let us cut out political action 
committees. But let us remember that political action committees were 
set up as a means of campaign reform, they were set up because you did 
not want corporations, labor unions, and others, contributing directly 
from their resources. So they said if people want to band together in 
political action committees, so long as they meet the standards, then 
they can contribute. They can participate.
  I think that we have seen, particularly in the other body, examples 
of how political action committees become dinosaurs, support those who 
are in the position of leadership and provide an uncompetitive means of 
reelecting incumbents by challenging all of their contributions to 
incumbents.
  I am happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Just to elaborate on the point my friend was making 
with regard to the tax and how they love incumbents. This is just for 
the majority party in the House.
  In 1994, just picking out the majority party in the House, in the 
1954 cycle, 52.3 percent of the moneys come from PAC's. In the 1992 
cycle, 51.4 percent from PAC's. In 1990, 52 percent from PAC's. Clearly 
as the Senator indicates PAC's love incumbents.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kentucky for pointing 
that out. I would say that while those overall figures are high there 
will be particular candidates whom I believe--particular office 
holders--who receive even higher amounts. And I think that is cause for 
concern. I think voters ought to look to see who is supporting that 
particular candidate.
  Is the officeholder, is the incumbent, who supposedly represents the 
constituents of his or her district or State, being financed by people 
in that district or State? Or are they receiving significant resources 
from outside their district or State?
  To me, that is always a test to see how well the particular 
candidate, whether it be incumbent or challenger, is going to represent 
the views of the district. Who is providing the resources for that 
campaign? I think that is one test, one of many, certainly not the 
exclusive one, but that is one of many that the voters ought to apply 
when they take a look at the record and the total picture that each 
candidate presents prior to election time.
  Now this group of independent observers goes on to propose:

       Free broadcast time to parties for use by congressional and 
     other candidates.

  Mr. President, I have some problem with that. Free broadcast time? 
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you are requiring somebody 
to give away free broadcast time, are you taking property? Are you 
taking a valuable right? Where do we get off telling a for-profit 
business or even a not-for-profit business which normally sells its 
advertising time that they have to give it away? To me, that begins to 
smell a little bit of the heavy handedness that sometimes Congress 
exercises when it controls or directs or affects the rights of people 
in its jurisdiction.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Both Senator Kempthorne, earlier in the evening, and 
Senator Gregg, right before the Senator from Missouri, pointed out that 
that sounded an awful lot like unfunded mandates to them.
  Here we are, Senator Kempthorne particularly leading the fight to try 
to save State and local governments from unfunded mandates. Mandates 
are irresistible to us. And, as the Senator from Missouri pointed out, 
it is like a big, fat unfunded mandate on the broadcast industry.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kentucky, and he is 
quite correct, we have in this body a great need to take a look at 
unfunded mandates.
  My friend from Kentucky pointed out that the Senator from Idaho has 
been very, very strong in his support on behalf of State and local 
governments of rolling back the tide of unfunded mandates.
  I came to this body, as a former State officeholder, very much 
concerned about the burden of unfunded mandates passed on to the States 
in the 1970's and 1980's. My colleague from Kentucky and Senator 
Kempthorne from Idaho have come from local governments where they also 
have the burden of unfunded mandates.
  I believe there is an increasing awareness of the difficulties of 
unfunded mandates and the impropriety of those of us who represent the 
Federal Government of telling State and local governments what they 
must do with the money that they raise from their taxpayers.
  But I would suggest that that concern over unfunded mandates not be 
limited just to Government. It ought to be applied to the mandates that 
we apply to the private sector. Are these controls warranted, necessary 
regulation? I think requiring operators of radio and television to give 
free broadcast time goes beyond that. If goes to the taking of property 
that should not be done on our Constitution without compensation.
  Now let me go on to another recommendation of this group. It says:

       Bundling prohibited for corporate and labor PAC's, and 
     other separate segregated funds established and financed by 
     incorporated entities such as trade associations, and for 
     registered lobbyists. Full disclosure and application of 
     contribution limits required where practice is permitted.

  Now, Mr. President, some of the most aggressive and active proponents 
of campaign financing reform happen, in my view, to be great 
practitioners of bundling. I have heard of--and I cannot say from 
firsthand knowledge--a number of candidates who have proudly beat upon 
their breasts and said, ``I don't take any money from political action 
committees. I don't touch that kind of money.''
  Yet, you know, some people who participate in PAC's say: you know, 
the funny thing is, I heard so and so's speech on that and he said how 
much he opposed taking PAC money, but he came to me and said, ``I can't 
take your PAC money, so I want you to go around and get checks from 
every person in your organization who can afford it. Have them make out 
the check directly to me and then you can just bring me the checks.''
  Talk about the height of hypocrisy. Talk about the height of 
hypocrisy. I mean, concentrated, concerted, and well-thought out 
demands for bundling.
  Some say, ``Hey, I don't want to touch any of your PAC money. I want 
to be pure. I am not going to take PAC money. But I am going to go to 
the people from whom I would normally get PAC money and say, `Hey, 
while I can't take your PAC money, go around and make a little PAC for 
me, just a little PAC for me, and get checks and I will give you credit 
for the total of all the collection you bring in.'''

  Now that smells to high heaven, and I believe it goes on. I believe 
that there has been bundling. And I would call upon those who have 
participated in it to come forth and say that when they talk about how 
bravely they have opposed taking any PAC money, have they taken bundled 
money? Are they going to exactly the same sources and just dressing it 
up by saying, ``We are not going to take money through your PAC's. We 
are going to take it when you bundle it.''
  But I agree on this one that bundling ought to be prohibited. And if 
there is bundling, it ought to be disclosed, because it is no different 
from taking a PAC contribution.
  Next, this group of experts say that: ``Independent expenditures by 
PACs sponsored by corporations, unions and trade associations (i.e., 
separate segregated funds) barred and private lawsuits to enforce 
independence permitted.''
  Well, I have seen a lot of independent expenditures. Some of them 
appear truly to have been independent. But one wonders, in these 
instances, how they just sprang out of nowhere. Too often, independent 
expenditures are merely campaign directed expenditures with sufficient 
steps and sufficient individuals between those controlling the campaign 
and those controlling the so-called independent expenditure to make it 
a difficult trail to track. And I think that that ought to be closely 
watched and thoroughly regulated.

       ``Soft money'' defined, curtailed and subject to complete 
     disclosure both of receipts and expenditures.

  Well, Mr. President, I have seen where soft money has been used. In 
the 1986 campaign in which I was first elected, there were reports by a 
major force in politics that they were going to spend $1 million in 
soft money in each of 10 States, and it was going to be designed to 
defeat people in my party. From what I have seen, only one other 
candidate of my party in those 10 States who was targeted by those soft 
money expenditures were elected that year.
  I think when soft money is used by an outside force, there needs to 
be full disclosure. We have never yet been able to track down the full 
amounts of those disclosures, the full amount of those soft money 
expenditures, or how they were spent or by whom they were spent and at 
whose direction they were spent.
  Now I think that there is a separate issue when you come to political 
parties. Some people try to lump political parties into the soft money 
disclosure. No. 1, I think that political parties should be able to 
spend money, but it should be fully disclosed. Political parties have a 
right to build their party. They have to have the necessary 
organization and the necessary structure. We run on a party system, a 
partisan system, that I believe can help us build and strengthen the 
institutions for presenting the views of the two competing parties to 
the voters and carrying out the platforms, the general direction, that 
those parties have represented.
  But I believe that once there is full disclosure, we should not seek 
to limit the amount of money that parties spend in those straight 
party-building activities.
  Now the final suggestion of this commission was that:

       Federal Election Commission improved with specified 
     procedural and enforcement reforms, including the setting of 
     priorities and especially adequate funding to do its job.

  That is the position recommended by the bipartisan commission. The 
report was delivered March 6, 1990. Here we are more than 4 years 
later. Unfortunately, Mr. President, I would have to say that the 
bipartisan commission's proposal was opposed by most Democrats and that 
is the reason it died a fairly quick death.
  Instead, throughout the late 1980's and 1990's, Democrats in Congress 
refused to compromise with a Republican President in order to enact 
fair bipartisan reforms. Instead, they sent to the President bills that 
were designed to assist the election and reelection of Democratic 
office holders. No surprise, they were vetoed.
  And now, we read in the Roll Call newspaper yesterday that some 
people are up to their old tricks. Let me quote:

       The threat of a Senate filibuster may actually lead to 
     movement among House Democrats, aides say, since Members 
     wouldn't mind having a pro-reform vote to take home if they 
     didn't have to live with the legislation down the road.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield to my friend from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That brings up an astonishing thing to the Senator 
from Kentucky, which is that anybody elected to serve the people of his 
or her State or district would conclude that voting for this turkey 
would be good politics. I mean, why in the world would anybody conclude 
that setting up a new entitlement program at taxpayers' expense for our 
political campaigns would be a good political vote? It leads me to 
wonder how anybody would--no wonder this Congress is out of touch, 
would probably be a better way to put it, completely and totally out of 
touch.
  No wonder the voters are angry that anybody would yearn to cast a 
vote for something like this. It really, it seems to this Senator, is 
beyond comprehension.
  So I thank the Senator from Missouri for bringing up that point.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kentucky for his 
comments.
  And let me reread the final part of that conclusion again.

       Members wouldn't mind having a pro-reform vote to take home 
     if they didn't have to live with the legislation down the 
     road.

  Well, now, Mr. President, I concurred with my friend from Kentucky. 
This measure, this measure with its public financing, its spending 
limits, which I believe inhibit the first amendment, is not really 
reform.
  I do not know how they would characterize a vote for this bill if 
they had to explain that they were going to reach into the taxpayers' 
pocket, another raid on the taxpayers, to finance their election.
  Do these people really want to go home and say, ``I have decided that 
I am going to reform the system. And, rather than going out and raising 
campaign funds, I am going to take it out of your pocket, involuntarily 
or not, I am going to take it out of your pocket"?
  That, to me, is breathtaking. It is awesome in its arrogance.
  But, for some people, this is what they would like to think is 
``reform.'' And, Mr. President, I just do not believe that.
  No wonder, no wonder the public gets upset with posturing and finger 
pointing. No wonder Congress approval rating is down near--and I hate 
to pick on my good friends--used car dealers, perhaps lawyers, or even 
lower.
  But, nevertheless, when Congress says ``I'm going to do reform, I'm 
going to take money out of your pocket, or I'm going to require 
broadcasters to give me free time,'' hey, that, to me, is not reform. 
That is an arrogance that we can use somebody else's property better 
than they can.
  At least under the system that we now have people have to decide to 
give voluntarily.
  And I go back to that. Disclosure and voluntary contributions, within 
limits, I believe, is what we should be doing. But, Mr. President, we 
know now where we stand. Once again, our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle are posturing. At this point, they are desperate enough to 
try to convince the public that they are for real reform; that is, 
getting into your pocket, taking your money for there campaigns, even 
as they cross their fingers and hope, hope, hope, that it just will not 
pass.
  But, as I said earlier, what really amazes me is that anyone could 
believe that the public will support reform which at its heart is 
taxpayer financing of campaigns. I do not recall having run into one 
real live person.
  Now, I want to exclude editorial boards, because editorial boards, in 
my view, do not represent real life people.
  They smoke something different or they drink different water. The 
editorial board sometimes comes up with wild and woolly ideas.
  But I exclude editorial boards and I say I have not had one real, 
live person, one real, live constituent, come up to me and say, ``Hey, 
I want to improve the campaign finance system, and I want you to take 
money from me by taxation to support your campaigns.''
  I think they would probably have to get some smelling salts to revive 
me if anybody did, because I just have no record, whatsoever, of people 
coming up in Missouri and saying, ``I want to have my taxes finance 
your campaign.''
  That's what this proposal is all about. This is a raid on the 
Treasury. We have gotten into the habit of taking everything out of the 
Treasury, so why should we not get rid of the problems of having to 
raise money?
  You know you have to explain yourself. You have to work at it. But 
you do not have to work at it nearly as hard as you have to work at 
gaining votes. Sure, it would make it a lot easier if you just went 
over and dipped into the Treasury and said, ``Hmm, time for a campaign 
again. Let's see, I want to buy some time so I will just dip into the 
Treasury. I want to get some free time from broadcasters.''
  Let me repeat: The Democrat's vision of campaign financing reform is 
to create an entitlement for politicians, and have the taxpayers pay 
for campaigns. I just do not think that is what the public has in mind. 
We have got a lot of problems with entitlements.
  There is an entitlement commission set up, and I wish them well. It 
is headed up by the Senator from Nebraska and my senior colleague, 
Senator Danforth, and they have dedicated Members of this body and 
others going around talking about entitlements. And everybody has come 
in to them and said, ``We want to change the entitlements. We realize 
that entitlements are going to break this country. We can't have more 
entitlement spending.''
  But, according to the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Simpson, who 
serves on that committee, every single one of them said, ``But, of 
course--but, of course--my particular area should not be considered an 
entitlement. Now I want you to crack down on everybody else's 
entitlements, and I know that entitlements are going to break this 
country.''
  Entitlement spending is mandated spending that does not go through 
the appropriations process. It is by law set aside and spent every 
year.
  Entitlement programs are going to squeeze out all other spending, if 
we do not change the path we are on. Sometime in the early 21st 
century, there will not be room for any other spending in the budget, 
without significant tax increases, because all of the funds that we 
raise, all of the debt that we incur, is going to go directly to 
entitlement spending.
  And at the same time we are talking about going out and reforming 
entitlements and finding out that everyone wants to limit 
entitlements--except their particular entitlement-- Congress is talking 
about establishing its own entitlement for its incumbents and its 
challengers, so that we will have a special piece of that directed 
spending, and it will not have to come from appropriations.
  Now, I do not think that is what the public has in mind. I have 
traveled around the State of Missouri these past few months, and if one 
thing is clear, people are getting more and more tired of having 
Government run things. They do not want Government running health care. 
They have talked about that. And as we have talked about the issues in 
recent months, they have talked about how they do not believe 
Government should come in and take over the health care system. When 
they found out what was in the massive Government-run health-care 
proposed system last year, they objected.
  This presents two points: No. 1, they do not want to have Government 
running things, whether it be campaigns or health care.
  And No. 2, they want full disclosure. They have a right to know what 
is in these bills. And that is what we are doing here today, explaining 
what is in this proposed legislation, because I believe in full 
disclosure. I think that sunshine is the healthiest disinfectant for 
the process around here, and I believe, through the good offices and 
the good work of the Senator from Kentucky, we have an opportunity to 
expose what is in this so-called campaign finance reform plan, to lay 
out for the people of America what is in the plan, what is being 
proposed as reform, and to say to the people of America, do you want 
it? Is this the way you want to go? Do you want to go with Government-
run campaign finance reform?
  They have said very clearly they do not want to go with Government-
run health care. And I believe that the same judgment is coming down, 
very clearly, when they discover that the Democratic idea of campaign 
finance reform is to make taxpayers pay for the election, as well as 
their salaries and their offices. I think that is the time that it hits 
the fan. I think that is when we get a significant response from our 
voters, and people say, ``This is not reform. This is not the direction 
we want to go.''
  Some say the Congress gets too many perks--parking, haircuts, free 
meals, travel. I think that some of those complaints may have been 
warranted in the past. I think we have taken steps to make sure that we 
pay for that which we would have to obtain in the private sector. But 
when we come down to asking the taxpayers for the ultimate perk of 
financing reelection from the Treasury, I think that is the ultimate 
perk.
  Why is this being proposed? I think it is being proposed because it 
may help the incumbent get elected and stay elected. I think that once 
again the inside-the-beltway crowd who is pushing this so-called 
reform, is out of touch, out to lunch. If they think this is an idea 
that can be called reform, they are missing the boat.
  What should be done? Are there not some reforms necessary?
  Yes, let me say I believe there are reforms that are necessary. We 
need a bipartisan compromise that both sides agree to. And I cite the 
example of health care reform. A partisan solution is the wrong one. I 
think a bipartisan solution is the right one. We have concluded, and 
are about to conclude, over a year's worth of work on a bipartisan 
health reform. There may or may not be time this year to get it done, 
but I think it will lay the basis for a successful bill next year. I 
believe that we have come together on a bipartisan basis, and come up 
with responsible health care reform. And I think we need to do the same 
thing with campaign finance reform.
  Now, my views are very simple. I think there are three basic 
principles that we ought to follow in campaign finance reform: 
Disclosure, disclosure, and disclosure. I think that is the best way of 
assuring that the people of America who are voting for the candidates, 
who are voting in the elections, know who is receiving support and from 
where they are receiving it.
  When I first campaigned for Governor of Missouri in 1972, there was a 
system of campaign contributions that was mind boggling. The paper sack 
was the favored campaign financing vehicle. I heard stories, and I 
think I saw some of those sacks. If they had fried chicken in them 
there would be grease on the sack. I saw sacks, paper sacks, that 
looked like they had something folded and crunchy in them. Well, I knew 
that there were things wrong. I took the highly unusual step--people 
called me crazy--volunteering to disclose my campaign contributions. 
People were astounded. I filled out reports. I said I am running for 
Governor as a reform candidate. I am going to lay out my contributions.
  People did not know what to do with them. They had a field day. They 
got really excited, because we--unfortunately, the sums were not as 
great, I guess, as they might have been had they not been disclosed, 
but I told my contributors, ``Hey, I am proud of it. I am going to 
disclose the contributions you make to me, because I think that people 
have a right to know who is supporting each candidate.''
  After I was elected, I worked to establish a campaign disclosure law. 
I was able to get the Missouri General Assembly to pass an open 
meetings law, and a lobbyist disclosure law. We had a little problem 
with campaign financing reform because some of my good friends in the 
Missouri General Assembly--and I had many of them--had thrived on that 
nondisclosure campaign finance system.
  So I took the unusual step of joining in a citizens' petition drive 
to get campaign financing disclosure on the ballot. As Governor, I went 
to shopping centers, I went to county fairs, and got people to sign 
signatures--put their signatures on an initiative petition for campaign 
financing reform.
  Well, we finally got campaign financing reform adopted by the voters. 
We had spending limits at the time. The court ruled these 
unconstitutional. I abided by those limits in 1976. Got 4 years to 
think about it, and had to come back again for reelection in 1980. But 
once we had finally passed the campaign financing disclosure, after the 
legislature fought against it and fought against it, they got the 
spending limits knocked out. They finally came back and passed campaign 
financing disclosure legislation.
  I think they passed good legislation. The principles that we passed, 
after knocking out the spending limits, were disclosure, open 
government, coupled with limits on special interests. And I think those 
are the guiding principles that we should follow today.
  I believe that soft money and independent expenditures should be 
disclosed fully. I would restrict and limit out-of-state funding, and 
PAC funding severely, or eliminate it completely, in order to enhance 
the importance of local support. And when you get right down to it, 
public financing entitlement from the campaign of an incumbent and 
challenger being funded from the Treasury, is just a plain old bad 
idea.
  We have fought to get a number of reforms for many years in the 
campaign financing reform. I believe that Republicans have advocated 
zeroing out PAC contributions for Congressional candidates. The 
majority went along with it grudgingly, but when it gets to the House, 
that is when it runs into problems.
  Well, Mr. President, we have been at loggerheads over what to do on 
PACs. The House Democrats have become quite accustomed, as I pointed 
out in my discussions with my colleague from Kentucky early on, to the 
heavy doses of PAC contributions in their campaigns. I think that we 
ought to apply the same limits to both parties. I believe that we can 
limit and restrict PAC contributions. We can limit out-of-state 
contributions. We can agree on these principles, if they apply to both 
parties. But I think the most important point, is to ensure full 
disclosure. I go back to that as the absolute central point in any 
campaign financing reform.
  If you have soft money, or an independent expenditure, first, if it 
goes through the political party in the State--a local political 
party--it must be fully disclosed and the party has to be responsible 
for it. People have to know where it is going. It cannot be used in a 
Federal election in any way, but it can build the party and turn out 
voters. It should be disclosed.
  If there is a soft money campaign, if an organization wants to come 
in and spend money to hire telephone callers, to put out precinct 
workers, if they are being paid, that needs to be disclosed and 
disclosed fully. I believe that is one of the greatest abuses we have 
today.
  I hear rumors that there are major soft money campaigns being geared 
up in parts of the country because that has happened before. They come 
in and hire telephoners, they hire door-to-door workers. I have had 
them come into my hometown. People have come in and claimed they are 
representing some organization with a high sounding purpose and then 
they proceed to trash me and go door to door and say misleading things 
about my record. These people are a scourge on the body politic, if 
they are being hired and sent in by outside interests. I think, though, 
we at least need to know who is paying them, who is behind them, what 
the organization is that is providing this soft money effort. To me, 
that full disclosure is an absolutely essential element in campaign 
finance reform.
  In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to join with us--particularly with 
the Senator from Kentucky--as we get about considering a real and 
meaningful campaign finance reform. Let us put it on the agenda for 
next year. I do not think there is time to put campaign financing 
reform to clean up what we have now and get anything through.
  The time has come and passed when we can do campaign finance reform 
this year. But we can do real and meaningful campaign finance reform if 
we build on what I hope will be the information that is developed in 
these debates and the reaction that the public will give us to these 
debates.
  I may be wrong and surprised, and I will come back to the floor and 
tell my colleagues if the people in Missouri say, ``You are mistaken. I 
want to have your campaign reelection financed out of my tax dollars.'' 
I will be the first to tell you so. I will come back and say if there 
is a groundswell. If there is not, I suggest that we get about 
meaningful disclosure and real campaign finance reform.
  I see my friend from Kentucky has risen. I commend him for his 
ability to stay with us for such a long period of time. Again, I thank 
him for his dedicated efforts. We owe him a great deal of gratitude. I 
commend him for his work on this issue, and I am proud to be associated 
with him in this task.
  With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair for his indulgences, and 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, before my good friend leaves the floor, 
let me thank him for his important contribution to this discussion. 
Sometimes it takes a few years to kill a bad idea. But the Senator from 
Missouri has been an important part of this debate over the years as we 
have considered a variety of different alternatives. We tried to figure 
out what the right thing to do was. There is a difference of opinion 
about the direction in which we ought to go, but there is no difference 
of opinion about what ought to happen in this bill. It has been 
gratifying that not only have we had speakers constantly throughout the 
night, without a single quorum call, we have actually had more speakers 
than we could accommodate, enduring the graveyard shift earlier this 
evening.
  So I think it is clear that there is a determined group here that is 
going to save the country from this ill-advised legislation.
  I thank the Senator for his contribution and to welcome the bright-
eyed, alert, senior Senator from New Hampshire who I see is ready to do 
battle. I thank him for his participation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, good morning. It is nice to see you here.
  Mr. President, I rise this morning to continue a very vitally 
important effort here on the floor of the U.S. Senate to tell the 
American people the truth about the efforts of leading members of the 
majority party in this Congress to push through a very radical scheme 
for taxpayer-financed campaigns for the Senate and the House of 
Representatives.
  What is this? It is a brandnew entitlement, a brandnew entitlement 
program for politicians. In the waning days of the Congress, it is a 
good time to slip something like that by. But thanks to the leadership 
of the Senator from Kentucky, this is not going to happen.
  Before getting to the substance of my remarks, I commend the Senator, 
while he is still here and awake on the floor of the Senate, for his 
leadership and his expertise. In any meetings I have ever participated 
in in the past 4 years in the Senate, whenever this subject has come 
up, all eyes turn to Senator McConnell to ask for his input and his 
knowledge on this issue. It is unparalleled. And I think the effort he 
has put forward here on behalf of the taxpayers of the United States of 
America and on behalf of true campaign finance reform is unparalleled. 
I commend him for it, for his leadership. He is tireless in this 
endeavor. He never hesitates to take this issue on in any meeting I 
have ever been at, to offer his opinion, advice, and counsel. As one 
Republican member, I am very grateful for his leadership.
  Mr. President, candidate Bill Clinton went coast to coast during the 
1992 Presidential campaign and promised ``to change welfare as we know 
it.'' But little did the American voter know that scarcely 2 years 
later, this promise would mean expanding welfare, to include a brandnew 
entitlement program for the politicians of the United States of 
America--all politicians of both parties, any party, any third party, 
any politician.
  Mr. President, the sad truth is that this Clinton-inspired Senate and 
House campaign finance reform bill on which the majority party wants to 
go to conference, would establish a brandnew taxpayer-financed welfare 
program for the Senate and the House Members' own political campaigns.
  Both of the bills would establish a set of conditions--spending 
limits being the principal one--that, if met, would entitle 
congressional candidates to a rich package of taxpayer-financed 
benefits. What are these benefits? They include a 50-percent broadcast 
discount, a mail discount, matching funds to counteract independent 
expenditures, and matching funds to counteract opponents who spend more 
than the voluntary spending limit.
  Frankly, Mr. President, I suspect that many Democrats in the House of 
Representatives who are facing tough reelection campaigns this fall, 
from what I read, are hoping we Senate Republicans block their campaign 
finance reform bill. They may not be saying it and I do not blame them, 
but I will bet they are thinking it. I suspect they do not want to be 
forced to vote on a new taxpayer-funded entitlement program for 
politicians. They know that such an outrageous scheme is bound to be 
very unpopular, to say the least, with the voters.
  Mr. President, there is no question in my mind that any taxpayer-
funded campaign finance reform bill that manages to emerge from the 
Congress is going to carry an enormous price tag. There is no question 
about that. It has to. We do not even know what the cost is. There is 
no way of estimating what the cost is because we do not know how many 
candidates are going to run for political office when they know it is 
going to be paid for by the taxpayers.
  The total cost varies. It depends who you consult. But any way you 
look at it, no matter how you cut it or define it, no matter how you 
research it, the cost will be huge--hundreds of millions of dollars. As 
we think about the national debt, $4.5 trillion, deficits, which are 
going to be going up right after the Presidential elections in 1996--
conveniently--when we look at that and think about adding another 
entitlement program onto the backs of the taxpayers of this country, I 
just do not know where the logic is to this.
  I think about my own reelection campaigns, and I can name a lot of 
people in my State--I hear from them from time to time--who would 
probably just as soon not see me reelected. Fortunately, I think there 
are more who would like to see me reelected. But those that do not want 
to see me reelected, I am sure, do not relish the idea of participating 
in my campaign by having their hard-earned tax dollars go to reelect 
me. But that is what will happen under this legislation.
  As one considers the cost of such a bill, it is very important to 
keep in mind the observation that the Congressional Budget Office made 
last year while trying to estimate the cost of Senate bill S. 3. The 
CBO observed: ``The cost of providing benefits under the system is 
highly uncertain.'' That is the understatement of the year. It is 
highly uncertain. It is definitely uncertain. There is no way--no way. 
We may not be able to print ballots long enough for the names of the 
people who will run simply because they know their election will be 
paid for.
  Mr. President, the reason that cost is uncertain, as I say, is that 
it depends on how many candidates there are running for the House and 
the Senate, and how many of them would choose to participate in this 
new politician's entitlement program. I submit there will be a whole 
bunch of them. There are countless scenarios to consider, any and all 
of which would change the total cost, not the least of which is the 
number of third party candidates who would be drawn to accept this new 
entitlement.
  Let me be as clear as I possibly can about this, Mr. President. The 
conference report based on the Senate and House-passed campaign finance 
reform bills would create taxpayer-financed entitlement program for the 
politicians in America--winners and losers, candidates, major party, 
third party, and independents--who agree to abide by a spending limit 
and raise the minimal threshold amount, would be entitled to a host of 
benefits.
  The total cost of these benefits just cannot be foreseen. You just 
cannot know. Can anybody really predict just how many candidates for 
the Senate and the House there will be in 1996? In 1998? In 2000? Of 
course not. It is impossible. So if you cannot predict the number of 
candidates, how in the world are you going to predict how much it will 
cost the taxpayers?
  But this is pretty common around here, is it not? How many times have 
you seen legislation come through here and nobody has the slightest 
idea what it is going to cost, or we do not know what the impact will 
be? But it sounds good. It is some program to do this or that and it 
has a nice ring to it, and people say, ``How can you vote against 
that?'' It sounds good and they have all kinds of names for them--
usually anything that involves children or some disease or something--
all you have to do is get that in there--or disaster relief. We love to 
load those bills up with pork. In the San Francisco earthquake bill, we 
had stuff in there for Chicago.
  Well, this is the problem, and it is the same here. There were 1,200 
more congressional candidates in 1992 than there were in 1990. I am not 
against people running for Congress. I think that is very healthy, but 
I am against making it a subsidy, to subsidize all of those candidates 
at the taxpayers' expense. This was a stunning increase. We did not 
foresee that. We did not know there were going to be 1,200 more 
candidates. Who can know? Who can know how many would have accepted 
matching funds had they been available: 4,400, 5,000, 10,000? Who 
knows? Many might have been wary of using taxpayer dollars to fund 
their campaigns, but I doubt it.
  Hundreds, or even thousands, of additional candidates might have run 
as third party or independent candidates because of the availability of 
taxpayer dollars to run their campaigns.
  The taxpayers should not fund our campaigns here. The people who 
support us, who like us, who want us to return, should fund our 
campaigns.
  The people who do not like us should fund our opponents. That is free 
speech. That is the United States of America. That is what our country 
is all about.
  Jefferson ran for President. He had opposition. So did Andrew Jackson 
and Abraham Lincoln.
  Why are we any different? Why do we now want to stop that process, 
the process that has worked for over 200 years?
  Can anyone really say how much independent expenditures we are going 
to spend? The answer is no. You cannot estimate it. You have no idea, 
no one has any idea. These numbers that are thrown around $200 million, 
$90 million, no one knows, absolutely no idea.
  It is entirely reasonable to assume that as direct candidate campaign 
spending is subjected to limits, independent expenditures will appear 
even more attractive for groups to influence election outcomes than 
already is today. That will be the temptation.
  Mr. President, who can predict with any precision just how many 
taxpayer dollars will be spent on the section of these bills that 
provide funding for one candidate to counteract the spending by his 
opponent that exceeds the spending limit. This is a critical point. 
Under the Senate bill if one candidate in a race exercises his 
constitutional right not to be bound by a spending limit, and spends 
even one penny over the voluntary limit, any complying opponent would 
receive a Government grant equal to one-third of the general election 
limit--one-third of the general election limit.
  Let me repeat that. Under this bill if one candidate in a race 
exercises his constitutional right not to be bound by a spending limit, 
in other words, he says it is unconstitutional so he does not abide by 
it, the limit at all, and spent one penny--just a penny--over the 
voluntary limit, any opponent who complied with the limit would receive 
a Government grant equal to one-third of the general election limit. 
The complying candidate could receive additional installments up to a 
total of 100 percent of the general election limit.
  There is no telling in how many instances this provision will kick 
in. You would absolutely have no idea--and in many cases, as most of us 
know who run for political office, you are not sure what your 
expenditures are until the election is over. You have bills come in 
weeks after the election. What do you do then? So someone violates the 
cap, wins the election, says have a nice day, I will pay my fine. But I 
am in the Senate.
  There are many variables to consider here, but even the lowest of the 
estimates--the lowest--say that the cost of these bills will run into 
the hundreds of millions of dollars. I have never seen a entitlement 
program yet that went down in costs. Not one. And this one will not 
either.
  A precise cost forecast is impossible because there is no final 
bill--there is no final bill. Second, the variables, as I have 
outlined, are inherently unpredictable. You cannot predict, you cannot 
predict with any definitiveness, this legislation and its impact.
  Nevertheless, there have been cost analyses done. You can always get 
a cost analyses around here. Plenty of offices around here and plenty 
bureaucrats are trained to do it. They are not always right, and you 
can always get more than one opinion, and they are never the same. But 
cost analyses have been done, each weighing the many variables 
differently, ironically.
  Let us take a look at some of these estimates. Democrats have 
estimated that it would cost $90 million every 2-year cycle just to 
provide matching funds.
  How much is that per election? Well at the rate of $200,000 per 
general election, per general election to the House candidates--that is 
the figure they use. The Senate-passed bill substitutes the Exon-
Durenberger speech tax imposing the corporate tax rate of 34 percent on 
all receipts of those campaigns that exceed the spending limit, percent 
of matching fund. This is supposed to encourage candidates to agree to 
the voluntary spending limits in the Senate elections.
  It is not clear what rationale was used in arriving at this $90 
million estimate and it will never be clear because you will never 
know. I will point out that if only the Republican and Democrat 
nominees in each House election--not third-party candidates just the 
two nominees--accepted matching funds, then that provision alone would 
cost over $170 million. Just on that.
  On the other hand, even on our side we are guilty of estimates. The 
Republicans say that it would cost about $200 million for each 2-year 
election cycle for House matching funds and to counter the expected 
increase in independent expenditures, since the Exon-Durenberger speech 
tax is widely believed to be unconstitutional, the final Senate 
campaign provisions may well include 20 percent, that is if the general 
election limit matching funds provision is as the 1992 conference 
report that was vetoed by President Bush. In that case, the Senate 
Republican policy committee has estimated a Government cost per 2-year 
election cycle ranging from a low of $207 million to a high of $296 
million, depending again on the variables.
  On the variables, there are so many variables. An additional $50 
million expense is expected to be incurred due to the 50-percent 
broadcast discount. Sound complicated? It is. Sound unenforceable? It 
is. Sound chaotic? It is. Sound unconstitutional? It is.
  Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it 
would cost $189 million in 1996 alone--in 1996 alone--if both the 
Senate and the House bills provide matching funding, an amendment that 
would increase to $203 million in 1998. CBO, frankly, in my opinion, 
appears to be making low-ball assumption with respect to variables, 
number of candidates, independent expenditures, and excessive spending. 
Thirty-nine million of the CBO figure is the annual cost of the House 
bills, FEC public awareness advertising campaign to promote make 
democracy work fund. CBO estimates that 95 percent of Senate candidates 
and 60 percent of House candidates would participate.
  Were the Exon-Durenberger speech tax to be retained in conference, 
then CBO estimates that the Senate campaign part of the cost would run 
to $17 million in 1996 and $21 million in 1998. That figure appears to 
assume that no independent expenditures will trigger the bottomless 
counterbalancing provision.
  My point in throwing out all these numbers, $90 million, $200 
million, $196 million, $171 million, $21 million. Nobody has the 
slightest idea what this is going to cost, absolutely not the slightest 
idea. These so-called counterbalancing provisions. I do not know.
  I see my colleague from Kentucky back on the floor.
  I do not know where we got the idea whoever spends the most wins. I 
think we have seen recently that has not been true. Certainly in the 
case of my earlier election, I tell you I was outspent 4 to 1.
  We saw a primary victory in Oklahoma. I believe he spent $17,000. His 
opponent spent--I do not know what his figure was.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe it was $17,000 or $18,000.
  Mr. SMITH. And the opponent spent?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Well over $300,000.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator. So $300,000 to $17,000. The 
individual was a 71-year-old retired school principal and he won the 
election.
  The point is, it is not money that always makes the difference. Sure 
sometimes it does, but there are also times when the voters just get 
fed up. And when the voters get fed up money does not matter.
  So maybe we are barking up the wrong tree.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SMITH. Certainly.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I was off the floor. As I was walking in I believe--
correct me if I am wrong--the Senator was talking about the difficulty 
estimating how much this bill may cost?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. On that point it is tough because we know that under 
the Presidential system Lyndon LaRouche got tax dollars to run for 
President while he was in jail. We know that Lenora Fulani, a widely 
known American of left-wing views, got over $1 million to run for 
President, and it was interesting.
  I was just pointing out to my friend from New Hampshire, in the paper 
that I never heard of called the Washington City Paper, Washington's 
free weekly, about Lenora Fulani. It says ``Lenora and the Money Go 
Round,'' and the subtitle is, ``Or How the 1992 Presidential Campaign 
of Lenora Fulani and Her''--it is a term here we are not quite familiar 
with--``Her Friend, Dr. Fred Newman, Reaped $2 Million in Federal 
Election Commission Matching Funds.'' And the article is about how they 
spent the money.
  The only reason I raise that, even though under the Presidential 
system just imagine the number of candidates around America, potential 
candidates around America, look in the mirror in the morning and say 
``Gee, I think I see a Congressman or Congresswoman,'' whether or not 
they are Republicans or Democrats. It is almost impossible to estimate 
how many fringe candidates the taxpayers will have to subsidize under 
this.
  Mr. SMITH. Exactly.
  Mr. McCONNELL. To go out and exercise some ego trip, running for 
public office, and of course, the FEC will have to audit that, and soon 
it will be the size of the Veterans' Administration. We will have an 
army crawling over some fringe groups being funded by our tax dollars. 
I mean it is a Rube Goldberg proposal.
  On the issue of spending, the Senator is perfectly correct. It is 
hard to anticipate. I think it is going to be a huge Federal 
entitlement.
  Mr. SMITH. Absolutely. I appreciate the Senator's response.
  I might say to the Senator from Kentucky that when you talk about 
these fringe candidates who step forth and accept the taxpayer moneys, 
would it not be better, indeed would it not be more American, if a 
similar number of candidates, be they fringe or serious, could step 
forward because they had support and interest in running, and had 
contributed dollars and volunteers who they have been able to motivate 
to join them? Is not that really what the political process should be 
rather than a subsidy saying why do not we just have everybody run, why 
do not we subsidize 200 million people and have them all run?
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator is correct. There is nothing corrupting 
spending under this current system. It has to come from a lot people. 
One of the most maligned races in the history of American politics, 
Senator Helms and I talked about it yesterday, was his 1984 election. 
People said, oh, my goodness, what an obscene amount of money was 
spent. Nobody said congratulations, Senator Helms. You had over 400,000 
contributors.
  Mr. SMITH. Right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Four hundred thousand Americans participated in that 
campaign.
  I mean, the truth of the matter is we know if you are able to spend a 
lot--unless you are wealthy, which I think is unfortunate, but the 
Supreme Court said you have a constitutional right to go out and spend 
everything you have if you want to on yourself or for or against 
someone else. But leaving that aside, for the rest of us mere mortals 
who do not have that kind of dough, if you are able to spend a lot of 
money you have a whole lot of support. And I scratch my head and, of 
course, nobody in the academic community believes that spending is 
corrupting because under this system it has to come from a whole lot of 
people.
  In other words, the point the Senator is making is you have to have a 
lot of support to raise a lot of money and that is obviously not 
harmful.
  Mr. SMITH. I would like to get into another area, the auditing of 
this kind of a program.
  Mr. President, the FEC audit of the 1988 Presidential campaigns were 
not completed until 1992. And that was for what--half dozen, 12, maybe, 
candidates. Enforcement arising out of those audits still continues to 
this day, as we speak. Of the 1992 Presidential campaigns, the FEC has 
not yet completed auditing of five of them--the Bush, Clinton, 
Buchanan, Tsongas, and the LaRouche campaigns. They are still being 
audited.
  We may have to turn over a very large building to the FEC if this 
legislation passes, because they are going to need a lot of room and a 
lot of employees in order to perform their obligation. Under the 
Senate- and House-passed bills, the Federal Election Commission staff 
has estimated that the agency's Audit Division would have to double in 
size. Its Office of General Counsel would have to increase in staff 
strength by more than 75 percent. Overall, the report estimates that 
the FEC would need a 50-percent budget increase. I think it would be 
more than that. From my perspective, I do not even think you can make a 
sensible judgment on that because it is going to depend on how many 
candidates run. So that is another estimate that is thrown out there. I 
think it would be substantially more than 50 percent and would continue 
to grow, because I think more and more candidates would be running with 
the taxpayer dollars.
  Incidentally, Mr. President, the Republican members of the FEC 
refused to sign off on this staff estimate. I think with good reason. 
Because they believe its assumptions were too conservative. I repeat, 
Mr. President, Republican FEC Commissioners thought these already 
horrendous figures were too low. So a 50-percent increase, some of the 
Republicans believed, was too low. And I agree with that assessment.
  As I mentioned earlier, another, not inconsiderable, factor here is 
fringe candidate proliferation. I know the Senator from Kentucky agrees 
with me. It is not that we are demeaning candidates. Any candidate has 
a right to run. But I think to be a meaningful candidate that candidate 
ought to generate support. And if the candidate does not generate 
support, why would the taxpayers fund the election when there is no 
support?
  Multiply Lyndon LaRouche and Lenora Fulani by 535 congressional 
races, Mr. President, and you have a taxpayers' nightmare. Not that I 
believe they do not have enough nightmares as it is with their property 
taxes, their State taxes, their Federal taxes, the budget deficit, the 
national debt at $4.5 trillion. Every time they turn around, Congress 
is passing another entitlement program. We just knocked one down, the 
health care bill. Now we have got this one. Program after program.
  I debate these things all the time in my State. I talk to my business 
leaders. I talk to average citizens every day and they say, ``Senator, 
why does this happen? Why are these programs coming at us like this?''
  The answer is very simple. There is nothing complicated about it. It 
is the numbers. There are enough people in the Senate and the House to 
do this to you by passing it. And if you feel that strongly about it, 
then it is time to get out at the polls and make some changes.
  Lyndon LaRouche has collected $2 million in taxes as a Presidential 
candidate in elections since 1976. I can think of a lot of good things 
that we could do with that $2 million, and that is not one of them.
  Recently paroled from prison, Mr. LaRouche has received another 
$568,435 in matching funds for the 1992 campaign that, as the Senator 
from Kentucky just said, Mr. LaRouche ran from his prison cell.
  Ms. Fulani, who was the candidate of something called the New 
Alliance Party, has received over $3.5 million in matching funds as a 
candidate in the last three Presidential campaigns--1984, 1988, and 
1992.
  I would assume, and the Senator from Kentucky can correct me if I am 
wrong, that a prisoner, a murderer, convicted murderer, in prison, I 
suppose could conduct a campaign for the President of United States or 
the House of Representatives; or, let us stick to this bill, the House 
or the Senate; is that not correct?
  Mr. McCONNELL. This will be an entitlement program that the courts, 
if it were otherwise constitutional, which it is not, but in this 
particular portion of the bill, the courts would not allow the Congress 
to distinguish between Republicans, Democrats, and anybody else. So if 
you have met the minimal standard and the court would require that the 
Congress not craft legislation that would only fund Republicans and 
Democrats, it is reasonable to assume that virtually any crackpot in 
America would be able to run for public office at our expense.
  Mr. SMITH. Including a prisoner.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Potentially, yes; potentially. We have seen that 
already with LaRouche. He was in fact in prison.
  Mr. SMITH. So we may see Charles Manson running?
  Mr. McCONNELL. It is an interesting hypothetical.
  Mr. SMITH. A nut, somebody who just decides I am going to do this 
just to screw up the system, if you will. Obviously, it would not be 
serious. But, on the other hand, if he has money, it would be just like 
him to do something like that. What else does he have to do?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I think that once you get into public funding, once 
you make a decision to cross that threshold, the courts would require 
us to make that reasonably accessible to any American, not just to 
people we would consider serious candidates, that is, Republicans or 
Democrats or some well-known Independent.
  So I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there will be a 
proliferation of people with off-the-wall views who would have a tough 
time raising money and gaining support in the marketplace, as you have 
to do now, who would have those views enhanced by the Federal Treasury.
  Mr. SMITH. As I understand--and the Senator from Kentucky certainly 
knows more about the law than I do, he being a very respected 
attorney--an individual who is convicted of a crime, a felony or higher 
is ineligible to vote but not ineligible to run for political office 
after his or her conviction.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It depends on the State law. Some States are more 
permissive about that sort of thing than others. But in terms of the 
access to the entitlement, it is unclear to this Senator. But, 
obviously, from the experience with LaRouche, we would have to conclude 
that there would be no impediment to that kind of individual receiving 
a Federal subsidy to run for public office.
  Mr. SMITH. I would submit to my colleague, to all of my colleagues 
and the American people, that is reason enough to defeat the 
legislation, if there are not enough other reasons, of course, which 
there are.
  If this taxpayer-finance congressional campaign scheme does become 
law, qualifying for taxpayer matching funds to run for Congress would 
be even easier than it is for Presidential campaigns. That is because 
support would only be demonstrated in a single State or district, 
rather than 20 States as is required under the Presidential system. 
Does anybody really doubt that this would result in a vast 
proliferation of third party or Independent candidates running for 
Congress with the aid of this new taxpayer-funded entitlement program 
for politicians? I do not see how anyone could deny that.
  Again, the issue is not that we are opposed to encouraging other 
candidates to run. It is encouraging them to run by providing them a 
subsidy.
  The American taxpayer is catching on, frankly, to the abuses and the 
inadequacies of the taxpayer-funded Presidential financing system. That 
is why, over the past two decades, the vast majority of American people 
chose not to check ``yes'' on their Federal tax forms to designate $1 
from taxes they already owed to go to the Presidential election 
campaign fund. And I am one of those who do not check that.
  In fact, Mr. President, the checkoff rate was so anemic that the fund 
was nearly bankrupted after the 1992 election. That is why President 
Clinton's budget bill last year tripled the checkoff figure from $1 to 
$3.
  Now, thanks to Mr. Clinton and the members of his party who control 
Congress, a dwindling minority who checked off ``yes'' will be able to 
spend three times as much now of the tax dollars of those who checked 
``no.'' So this is a very interesting situation that we find ourselves 
in.
  There are very ingenious ways around here of circumventing the intent 
of the American taxpayer.
  What, Mr. President, do the American people get for their tax dollars 
under the current Presidential election campaign funding system? What 
do they get? Numerous nonpartisan and highly knowledgeable witnesses 
have testified before the Senate Rules Committee in the last few years 
that the system of Presidential campaign spending limits simply does 
not work, period. The majority party's congressional campaign finance 
reform bills in the Senate and the House deliberately model themselves 
on the disastrous Presidential election campaign funding system. That 
is not working. People do not like it. Why then do we want to compound 
the problem?
  The ultimate goal of the taxpayer-funded campaign spending limit 
proponents is to replicate the Presidential system--535 times we are 
going to replicate it. And actually that is not true. You are actually 
going to replicate it 535 times, times the number of candidates who 
will be running for those offices, which is unlimited. Thousands of 
candidates; 535 races, but thousands of candidates. Not to mention, let 
us not forget, this army that will be following along, auditors, 
lawyers--no offense to my colleague--accountants, oh, they will all be 
there. They will be following along to keep the books, make sure 
everything is done properly. Oh, it will be a fun time.
  To be fair, Mr. President, the Senate-passed bill is not exactly like 
the Presidential system, I would agree. Like that system, the Senate 
bill would be expensive, and like that system, the Senate bill will not 
work. What distinguishes the Senate bill from the Presidential system, 
however, is--and it is a big difference--the Senate bill is 
unconstitutional. That is a pretty healthy difference. It does not seem 
to matter to a lot of people around here. We trample on the 
Constitution almost daily. But it is unconstitutional, let us face it. 
It is unconstitutional. It will be challenged if it passes. I have 
enough confidence in the courts to believe that they will strike it 
down.
  Thus, with the Senate and the House campaign finance reform bills, 
the American taxpayer not only is being asked to pay for a system that 
would not function as advertised but he or she is also being asked to 
pay for an unprecedented assault on the first amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States.
  I have heard a lot of my colleagues defend that first amendment with 
great gusto who are in favor of this bill. You do not have to be a 
constitutional lawyer or a scholar to figure out that the American 
taxpayer is not eager to pay for our political campaigns. That is a 
fact. Ask them. They do not want to pay for our campaigns. Eighty 
percent of the taxpayers already, 80 percent of the taxpayers, refuse 
the Presidential checkoff. And I would submit that they are hardly 
clamoring to pay for the Senate and the House campaigns. So why do we 
model this thing after that? Well, because it protects the incumbent. 
And who has the majority? End of story.
  Let us look at the constitutional issue, though, Mr. President. Both 
Senator McConnell--himself a fine lawyer who served as a senior Justice 
Department official under the Ford administration--and the American 
Civil Liberties Union are united in their belief--I am little concerned 
about you being united with the American Civil Liberties Union--but 
they are united in their belief that campaign spending limits are bad 
public policy because they limit speech and participation in the 
political process, limit speech and political participation in the 
process. Why would anybody want to do that--limit speech and limit 
participation in the political process. That is what this bill does.
  Spending limits are undemocratic. But Senator McConnell and the ACLU 
are also united in their belief that involuntary or coerced spending 
limits are also unconstitutional because they, in that case, are a de 
facto limit on free speech.
  Mr. President, the biggest roadblock to limiting campaign spending is 
the first amendment, which protects political speech. The Supreme Court 
determined nearly 20 years ago in the case of Buckley versus Valeo that 
campaign spending, which is primarily for the purpose of communicating, 
is analogous to speech. The decision has already been rendered. There 
is nothing wrong with private citizens supporting candidates of their 
choice by contributing their hard-earned dollars. What is wrong with 
that, as long as it is reported, made public in accordance with the 
law.
  But, an overall limit on spending by a campaign is a two-pronged 
restriction on speech. First, it restricts the total amount of speech 
available to the candidate by cutting what the candidates would spend 
on communication. Second, it restricts the total number of citizens who 
can participate in the process by making a donation. Thus, spending 
limits cut speech out of the process and cut people out of the process. 
So we have a spending limit.
  If I reached the limit and my brother wants to donate $100 to my 
campaign, I cannot take my brother's $100.
  It does not make sense to me.
  That is why the Supreme Court did what it did, said what it said in 
Buckley versus Valeo. They said that spending limits by themselves are 
unconstitutional. The Court rightly said the Congress similarly cannot 
force candidates, that is, only a set amount. It is a restriction on 
free speech. The Constitution protects us from that. So not only are we 
limiting speech, we are then forcing the taxpayers to pay to pick up 
the slack--which compounds the problem.
  In the Buckley case, however, the Court said that it is 
constitutional for the Government to entice candidates through generous 
subsidies and to accepting spending limits. Hence, we have the current 
Presidential campaign finance system wherein return for complying with 
spending limits, candidates receive generous subsidies courtesy of the 
taxpayers.
  This entire campaign finance debate, it is not really about campaign 
spending. It is not about campaign spending. It is a debate about the 
first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It is about 
the freedom of political speech that we hold dear. It is about who will 
be allowed to speak in the electoral process, and how much. The 
congressional majority's proposal seeks to parcel out speech in 
carefully calibrated amounts in order to preserve the control of both 
Houses of Congress. Let us call it like it is.
  Senator McConnell, to his credit--and I have been involved in 
discussions with him on this--has said, it does not matter if our party 
is in control, it is the same issue. It is wrong. He knows, and I hope 
as he does in the very near future, that we will be in the majority 
party. He knows the impact that that will have on us as the majority 
party. But he also knows that the Constitution of the United States, 
specifically free speech, is more important than the success or failure 
of any political party. He deserves a lot of credit for having the 
courage to take this issue on on that basis.
  Mr. President, an official of the U.S. Department of Justice 
testified before the Senate Rules Committee in 1992 as to what is 
really at stake in this debate about campaign finance reform. He said, 
``It should never be forgotten that by protecting robust debate and 
broad criticism of competing candidates, the first amendment was the 
most important electoral reform ever enacted.''
  I could not agree more, Mr. President. The first amendment to the 
Constitution, indeed, was the most important electoral reform ever 
enacted. It guarantees the American people that their democracy will 
always be vibrant--always. It assures the American people that when 
they are unhappy with their Government, they have the right to speak 
out and get active in the electoral process so they can change things. 
It assures that the press can honestly report on what is happening.
  The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees that candidates 
can speak as much as they want, as long as they want, as often as they 
want. And it guarantees that candidates can spend as much as they want, 
so that they can communicate with the voters. And we report it, and it 
is public, and we can be judged on where we get those funds. It 
guarantees that if Congress enacts a law that effectively forces 
candidates to limit their ability to communicate with the electorate, 
it will be struck down in the courts as an unconstitutional 
infringement of the freedom of speech that is guaranteed by the first 
amendment.
  We should give the voters of this country more credit. They are a lot 
smarter than we think they are, than we give them credit for being. 
They understand. That is why, time and time again, as we saw just last 
week, you will see a candidate who spend very little money come through 
and upset someone who spends 10, 15, 20 times as much money. Because 
money is only part of the process.
  I have no doubt, Mr. President, that under the Supreme Court's 
decision in the Buckley case, the Senate and the House versus the 
campaign finance reform bills are blatantly unconstitutional and will 
be proven so if it gets that far. We have heard that case made 
eloquently by Senator McConnell over and over and over again during 
this debate.
  Even the ACLU agrees. And I understand that Senator Danforth placed 
their legal memorandum on their subject in the Record yesterday.
  Before I leave the subject of the unconstitutionality in the case of 
these bills, Mr. President, let me focus on the constitutionality on 
the Senate bill's free speech penalty provision. As I noted earlier, 
that provision says that if a candidate exceeds the spending limit even 
by $1, or if a group of citizens decides to interject its views 
independently during an election, then the complying candidate would be 
eligible to receive an unlimited infusion of taxpayer dollars.
  Let me take a minute to explain why it is unconstitutional to impose 
a discriminatory tax on free speech. Starting with the Buckley case, 
the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that campaign spending is 
indistinguishable from campaign speech. That is been already 
determined. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to limit campaign 
spending just as it would be unconstitutional to limit campaign speech. 
They are one and the same says the Supreme Court. They are inseparable. 
If you pull the plug on the microphone, then you have pulled the plug 
on the speech for everyone who is not in the front row. That is what 
you have done.
  Nevertheless, the Court held in the Buckley case that candidates can 
be enticed consistent with the Constitution to limit their speech by a 
generous taxpayer-funded subsidy. The crucial point was that such 
speech limits had to be purely voluntary. There could be incentives but 
no coercion. That is how the Presidential system works, where the 
public subsidy is so generous that only extremely wealthy candidates, 
like a Ross Perot, for example, could afford to turn down the money.
  Applying the first amendment constitutional standards articulated by 
the Supreme Court in the Buckley decision, the Senate and House-passed 
bills are clearly unconstitutional. They would establish layer, upon 
layer, upon layer, upon layer of punishments--punishments--for any 
political speech that the bills deal to be excessive--in direct 
conflict with the rulings of the Buckley case.
  What the Senate-passed speech tax, in particular, would do is to 
reduce the upfront costs by stripping out the direct taxpayer subsidies 
and replacing them with a tax assessed on the gross contributions of 
any candidate who exceeds the limits. It should be clear, Mr. 
President, to everyone, that those savings are generated at the 
incalculable cost of damaging the first amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States of America.
  It is unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has said, to impose 
spending limits on candidates by law. If it is, then it is also 
unconstitutional to impose spending limits on candidates by a 
discriminatory tax.
  If it is somehow unconstitutional, Mr. President, to impose 
discriminatory taxes on speech, then maybe we should consider other 
speech taxes that might help to suppress unpleasant speech while 
raising revenues that could be used for, say, deficit reduction. These 
are other taxes might be aimed, hypothetically, to pornography, 
television violence, flag burning, independent expenditures, labor soft 
money, perhaps newspaper editorials. Wow. That would be controversial, 
would it not? It we did not like what was said in a newspaper article, 
or editorial, there would be a tax on it--put it toward cancer 
research. Who would make that determination?
  Mr. President, this speech tax sets a new and bizarre constitutional 
standard. If we do not like some form of speech, if it is inconvenient, 
then we will not ban it. We will tax it. Wow. Who thought that one up? 
It is interesting when these bills get written, you never really find 
out who wrote the fine print in some of these. I do not know if anybody 
would stand up on the floor and take credit for that one.
  The Senate bill discriminatory tax on speech is not merely an 
indirect constraint on speech, it is a direct attack on the first 
amendment rights of candidates as articulated by the Supreme Court. It 
taxes candidates into submission by placing this outrageous provision, 
the Senate said that it could not afford to entice candidates into 
abiding by the spending limits, so instead we will use a Tax Code to 
pummel them, beat them into submission, with the Tax Code. What 
candidate would dare not comply with this bill when their gross 
campaign receipts are going to be taxed at the full corporate tax rate 
if they do not?
  Finally, Mr. President, George Will, Pulitzer Prize-winning 
columnist--and as Senator Helms pointed out yesterday, former Senate 
aid, George Will, has written an outstanding article on this subject. 
It appeared in the June 2, 1993, issue of Newsweek and it is entitled, 
``So, We Talk Too Much?''
  I know my time is close to ending here, but I will quote it briefly. 
I will submit it for the Record. I think it has been submitted for the 
Record, if I recall, so I will not ask that it be submitted for the 
Record. But while I have a few minutes left, let me make a couple of 
quotes from it.

       Washington's political class and its journalistic echoes 
     are celebrating Senate passage, on a mostly party-line vote, 
     of a ``reform'' that constitutes the boldest attack on 
     freedom of speech since the enactment of the Alien and 
     Sedition Acts of 1798. The campaign finance bill would ration 
     political speech. Fortunately, it is so flagrantly 
     unconstitutional that the Supreme Court will fling it back 
     across First Street, N.E., with a two-word opinion: ``Good 
     grief!''

  Wow. I cannot say it much better than that. Again, Will says:

       The reformers begin, as their ilk usually does, with a 
     thumping but unargued certitude: campaigns involve ``too 
     much'' money. (In 1992 congressional races involved a sum 
     equal to 40 percent of what Americans spend on yogurt.

  ``On yogurt,'' says George Will.
  Again, Will says:

       Given the government's increasing intrusiveness and 
     capacity to do harm, it is arguable that we spend too little 
     on the dissemination of the political discourse.) But 
     reformers eager to limit spending have a problem: mandatory 
     spending limits are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court 
     acknowledges that the First Amendment protects ``the 
     indispensable conditions for meaningful communication,'' 
     which includes spending for the dissemination of speech. The 
     reformers' impossible task is to gin up ``incentives'' 
     powerful enough to coerce candidates into accepting limits 
     that can be labeled ``voluntary.''

  Still quoting from the same article from Will:

       Most taxpayers detest public financing. (``Food stamps for 
     politicians,'' said Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky 
     Republican who will lead the constitutional challenge if 
     anything like this bill becomes law.)

  Again, still quoting from Will:

       But the court says the government cannot require people 
     ``to pay a tax for the exercise of that which the First 
     Amendment has made high constitutional privilege.'' The Court 
     says the ``power to tax the exercise of a right is the power 
     to control or suppress the exercise of its enjoyment'' and is 
     ``as potent as the power of censorship.''

  Mr. President, this is very serious business that we are in here 
today. We are playing with the Constitution of the United States, 
specifically free speech. I think back a number of times in my own 
elections, as I indicated earlier, where I was outspent, not always, 
but in some of my earlier elections, outspent substantially. But when I 
was being outspent, I was out working--walking door to door, 18 hours a 
day, meeting voters. I was not criticizing my opponent for raising 
money--that is his privilege--but going out, meeting the voters, trying 
to do what I could with the limited resources that I had. That is it. 
That is the American way. That is the American way.
  And, when that support came, you got support from your constituents, 
your would-be constituents, you began to build up this support base, 
and then you win your election, and you feel a lot better about it, 
frankly, because of the way you did it.
  I want to finish on this Will quote.

       Incumbents can live happily with spending limits. 
     Incumbents write the limit, perhaps not altogether 
     altruistically. And spending is the way challengers can 
     combat disadvantages, such as name recognition, access to 
     media, and franked mail. Besides the most important and 
     plentiful money spent for political purposes is dispensed 
     entirely by incumbents. It is called the federal budget. It 
     is called the Federal budget--$1.5 trillion this year and 
     rising. Federal spending (along with myriad regulations 
     and subsidizing activities such as protectionist measures) 
     often is vote-buying.
       It is instructive that when the Senate voted to empower 
     Government to ration political speech, and even endorse 
     amending the First Amendment, there was no outcry from 
     journalists. Most of them are liberals and so are disposed to 
     like Government regulation of (other people's) lives. 
     Besides, journalists know that Government rationing of 
     political speech by candidates will enlarge the importance of 
     journalists' unlimited speech.

  Again, I would equate Senator McConnell with George Will, each in 
their own right. George Will is not afraid to take on his colleagues or 
brethren in the media for the sake of the Constitution. Senator 
McConnell is prepared to debate even some in his own party, who may be 
in the majority in the near future, because of the predominant impact, 
that the Constitution must take precedence over the success of a 
political party. That takes a lot of courage. He is right. Senator 
McConnell is right and George Will is right.
  Let me just conclude on this last paragraph from the Will article:

       The Senate bill's premise is that there is ``too much'' 
     political speech and some is by undesirable elements (PAC's), 
     so Government control is needed to make the Nation's 
     political speech healthier. Our governments cannot balance 
     their budgets or even suppress the gunfire in America's 
     (potholed) streets. It would be seemly if politicians would 
     get on with the basic tasks, rather than with the mischief of 
     making mincemeat of the First Amendment.

  You cannot say it any better than that, Mr. President.
  We realize the inconvenience that this imposes on staff around here, 
on the occupants of the chair, on our colleagues, as we involve 
ourselves in a filibuster like this. Many of our colleagues went 
through the night, and Senator McConnell was probably here all night. 
Every time I turned on the TV, he was there. We understand the 
inconveniences and, to some extent, we regret it. But the 
inconveniences that we all experience as we conduct this debate are 
minor, nebulous, compared to the Constitution of the United States and 
the free speech that we all cherish.
  I cannot imagine the chaos that this bill would cause in the 
political system. I cannot imagine it--prisoners, nuts, lunatics, 
fringe people, taking taxpayer dollars to run for political office. We 
are not talking about solid candidates, who truly want to go out and 
solicit support, workers, and money, because they care about the 
country and want to run--whatever political party, or even if they are 
not a member of a political party and are truly independents. Those are 
not whom we are talking about. They will benefit, as we all will, but 
the process, or the country, or the Constitution will not benefit.
  So I hope that the eloquent remarks and the leadership of Senator 
McConnell will be heeded and that we do not lose sight of the fact that 
this Constitution that we all swear to uphold will not be lost or 
diminished by passing a bill that would have this kind of impact on the 
American political process, and also on free speech. It would be a 
catastrophe, an absolute catastrophe.
  Again, I thank my colleague for his leadership, and I mean that with 
every ounce of resolve in my body; how much we owe you for the courage 
and leadership you have displayed on this matter. It is unparalleled 
and unprecedented in all the years I have been here. I have never seen 
anything to equal the way and the intensity with which you have led 
this issue. We respect you very much for that, as you know.
  I think it is pretty close to my time expiring. I yield to the 
Senator from Kentucky. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say to my good friend from New 
Hampshire that he has been overly generous in his kind comments about 
my work on this issue. I thank him for his support and contribution as 
well.
  This issue has been a little bit like health care in the sense that 
it has been a learning experience. As we have each prepared to speak on 
the subject, everybody has learned a little bit more about this issue. 
It also has related the implications of this legislation to our own 
personal experiences, as the Senator has related so skillfully.
  This is indeed about the first amendment, and we are certainly, as 
the Senator from New Hampshire skillfully pointed out, making no 
apologies for trying to stop this lousy piece of legislation. We are 
not apologetic. We are here gleefully pointing out to the public what 
was being attempted to sort of sneak through here at the 11th hour. We 
welcome the opportunity to discuss this at length with the American 
people.
  So this debate serves two purposes. First, it helps bring about the 
demise of one of the worst pieces of legislation ever conceived by the 
mind of man. And it educates the public as to what this Congress may be 
contemplating on the way out the door--to set up a new entitlement 
program for us at the 11th hour when we know the entitlement 
commission, chaired by our colleagues from Nebraska and Missouri, are 
probably a month from now going to recommend that everybody else's 
entitlements be capped sometime in the future.
  So it is extremely important to have this debate and, of course, we 
are prepared to have it two more times.
  Mr. SMITH. I might say that the silence of the proponents is rather 
deafening in this debate, with the exception of our colleague, Senator 
Boren.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I expect their idea was to make us do all the talking 
during this 30 hours. That has been quite easily done. Who would have 
thought we would have had people backed up two deep to take the 
graveyard shift. There has not been one quorum call since yesterday, 
and there will not be until we finish this thing. A point we want to 
make quite clear is that this is lousy legislation. We are going to do 
everything we can within our power to stop it. I thank the Senator from 
New Hampshire for taking a rather early hour in participating in this 
effort.
  I see our dear colleague from South Dakota on the floor to take his 
hour. Before he begins, I commend him for the role he has played in 
this. I recall, thinking back to June 1993, it was the Senator from 
South Dakota who said forcefully on the floor of the Senate that we 
should not let any bill out of the Senate that allows continued 
participation of political action committees because they are what is 
really wrong with the system and what the public thinks we ought to do 
something about.
  The Senator from South Dakota offered the amendment to zero out PAC's 
for Senators and Congressmen. He made the case that if the public is so 
concerned about the so-called special interests--and we can have a big 
argument about what a special interest is. As several Senators said, a 
special interest is a group supporting my opponent in an election. 
Nevertheless, the perception is that special interests may have too 
much clout around here. It was the distinguished Senator from South 
Dakota who offered the amendment, who led the debate, and who provided 
the opportunity for the Senate version, at least, to zero out PAC's.
  Of course, that has been the argument among Democrats for all this 
year. There has been a conference going on--kind of an unofficial 
conference of the majority here and in the House. They have been 
conferencing for 10 months. I expect at some point they may resolve 
their differences and try to drop something on us here at the end.
  Let me say that but for the leadership of the Senator from South 
Dakota on the PAC issue, I think we would not be in nearly as good a 
shape as we are to stop this unfortunate legislation. I thank him for 
his outstanding contribution.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chair recognizes the Senator from South 
Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my friend from Kentucky for his courage. His 
leadership here will long be remembered.
  I did not speak during the graveyard shift, although I volunteered to 
do so. I have the relatively easy task of speaking at 8:10 in the 
morning. I thank him for such a civilized assignment. He has done a 
great job of fighting something that is hard to fight, because every 
Member of Congress and every Senator out on the campaign trail is for 
campaign reform. Everybody is for campaign reform of one sort or 
another. It is very hard for the public to know what is going on. I 
hope some people are listening to this debate because things are being 
explained here. It is very strange that none of the proponents, except 
one, has spoken. I think it is because they do not want to be 
identified with this piece of legislation.
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. PRESSLER. I prefer not to yield at this point. I will yield later 
on. The weight of what I have to say is so great, I would like to get 
it said and I will yield later.
  The point I am making is that I think the proponents of this 
legislation are not proud of the piece of legislation as it has come 
back. That is why we just are hearing speeches from opponents at this 
time. I have material to present during my hour, and I will be glad to 
yield for questions at the end of my hour. But I am here this morning 
to present some ideas.
  Let me say that in just looking at the clock, I see it is almost 8:15 
here. It is about 6:15 in most of my constituency. I do not know how 
many people are up watching C-SPAN 2 yet. But if they are watching, I 
say that I think we need to look at the truth of this legislation. I 
think we need to look at what is really in it.
  As happened with the crime bill, somehow across the country people 
found out what was in the crime bill. When I went home after voting 
against the crime bill, I was thanked by many of my constituents. I do 
not know if they got it from C-SPAN, or from Rush Limbaugh, or from the 
newspapers. But I was amazed at how much people knew about what we are 
doing down here. I am glad to see that. I hope they also look into this 
so-called campaign reform bill.
  Mr. President, judging from press reports, the negotiations between 
majority party leaders in the House and Senate these past 10 months 
have centered on the matter of political action committees. More 
specifically, the question of whether to reduce the limits or eliminate 
them, as the Senate did when it adopted the amendment I sponsored last 
year, has tied House and Senate Democrats in knots.
  Let me refresh your memory on the PAC issue for Members whose 
recollection of this issue may be a bit hazy. After all, 15 months have 
elapsed since the Senate passed its campaign finance bill and 10 months 
have passed since the House passed its campaign finance bill.
  Members may recall that for several years now, Republicans have 
advocated eliminating PAC contributions for Senate and House 
candidates. Not the current $10,000 per election cycle under current 
law, not the $5,000 per cycle that Common Cause has proposed and 
admitted would have no effect.
  We proposed zero dollars on this side of the aisle. We proposed 
eliminating PAC's entirely. That was my amendment so I know what it 
meant. I know the legislative history of it. We proposed that the 
practice the public most commonly views as an abuse would be 
eliminated. That legislation is a fact and it passed the Senate of 
these United States.
  Many Members on both sides of the aisle voted for it. But then a 
funny thing happened over in the House. They changed it. They 
reinstituted PAC's. In fact, PAC's can be even stronger because you can 
just create more of them and they will contribute more. This is really 
an incumbents protection bill especially for Members of the House. It 
is not a reform bill at all.
  No political action committee contributions to congressional 
candidates, period, that is what we suggested.
  The majority grudgingly went along in 1990, inserting the Republican 
PAC-ban provision into this bill just before the Senate started 
debating campaign finance that year. The Senate again passed a campaign 
finance bill in 1991 which zeroed-out PAC contributions. When that bill 
was conferenced in 1992, the PAC's were back. President Bush vetoed 
that bill, so we revisited the matter in 1993. In June 1993, 15 months 
ago, the Senate passed a congressional campaign finance bill that 
zeroed-out PAC's. In November, 10 months ago, the House rejected the 
Senate's tough-on-PAC's provision and passed a bill that left the PAC 
contribution limit at the current $10,000 per election cycle limit.
  Since then, according to press reports, House and Senate Democrats 
have been at loggerheads over what to do on PAC's. Senate Republicans 
believe very strongly that the political action committee contribution 
limit should be severely cut, even zeroed out all together. No bill is 
going to get past the Senate which does not eliminate PAC 
contributions. House Democrats, however, have become quite accustomed 
to heavy doses of PAC contributions in their campaigns, and do not care 
to give that up. Indeed, many House Democrats have as much as 90 
percent of their total campaign receipts coming from PAC's, political 
action committees. That is why they do not want to give them up. The 
various business PAC's give mostly to Democrats because they are in 
charge around here. All the labor PAC's go to Democrats, liberal 
Democrats, and teachers' PAC's go to liberal Democrats. And that is a 
fact. It is very strange that Common Cause should be joined together--I 
shall talk more about that later--in the effort to preserve political 
action committees. We were ready to eliminate them. It was my amendment 
here in the Senate that abolished them.

  Why cannot we do that? That is real reform. Why do not we get it done 
today and then go on to do other things?
  Mr. President, it was a formula for gridlock--among Senate and House 
Democrats. Senate Democrats wanted to do something on PAC's so that 
they could get their taxpayer-funded spending limits bill through the 
Senate. But, indeed, I think even the Senate Democrats will get much 
more PAC money had they known that their House counterparts were going 
to act in the fashion that they did. The House Democrats preferred to 
do nothing in regard to lowering the PAC contribution limit. Hence, the 
Washington Post headline last month: ``Democrats Fail to Compromise on 
PAC Limits.''
  Common Cause was concerned that its taxpayer-funded spending limits 
bill was going to come crashing down because of the PAC issue. So 
Common Cause stepped into the breach with the unreform proposal: a 
$2,500 PAC limit. Common Cause proposed to House Democrats that they 
agree to split the difference with the Senate and lower the PAC 
contribution limit to $2,500. Still 2\1/2\ times more than an 
individual could give, but Common Cause believed this could get the 
campaign finance package through the Senate.
  Despite the Senate's 86 to 11 vote last year on the Pressler 
amendment which zeroed-out PAC contributions for both Senate and House 
candidates, Common Cause thought the Senate would roll over and accede 
to a $2,500 per election, $5,000 per cycle PAC level.
  Common Cause is urging House Democrats to swallow the $2,500 limit 
because it would not, in fact, be a bitter pill to swallow. As Common 
Cause's own communique to House Democrats dated June 29 states: 
``Adding a cut in the individual PAC limit to the bill would not have a 
significant impact on House Members.''
  Mr. President, I repeat: According to Common Cause, a $2,500 PAC 
limit would not have a significant impact. Moreover, Common Cause 
studied the House Democrats' PAC habit and found that ``only 2 percent 
of House Democrats' total campaign receipts would have been cut'' if 
the $2,500 limit were adopted.
  We have the hypocracy of Common Cause and the Democrats in the House 
writing a letter saying: ``This does not make any difference. You would 
only lose 2 percent of your money. Let us keep the PAC's anyway. More 
PAC's would be created with a 2-percent limit. You will have multiple 
PAC's. So what is the difference?''
  In sum, Mr. President, Common Cause is urging House Democrats to go 
with the $2,500 limit because to do so would, in fact, be the same as 
doing nothing. It would be a ploy, the only purpose of which would be 
to fool the public into thinking that Congress was significantly 
reducing PAC influence when, in fact, it was not.  That is what the 
whole campaign bill is a ploy to look like campaign reform but really 
it is an incumbents' protection bill, especially for House Democrats, 
and it is outrageous.

  Now, I am not certain what House and Senate Democratic leaders 
finally agreed to on PAC's, but I just wanted to point out to 
colleagues that a $2,500 limit is not going to get a conference report 
out of the Senate.
  Mr. President, for the information of viewers who probably have heard 
a lot about PAC's, I would like to provide some background. ``Political 
action committee'' is not a phrase found in Federal law. The phrase is 
used to refer to two legal expressions--``separate segregated fund'' 
and ``political committee''--depending on whether the entity is 
affiliated with a sponsoring organization.
  Of the roughly 4,000 PAC's registered with the Federal Election 
Commission, nearly three-quarters of them are classified as separate 
segregated funds. Such PAC's are generally associated with 
organizations prohibited by law from making direct contributions to 
campaigns. However, these organizations--labor unions, corporations, 
and so forth--can pay for their PAC's administrative costs and 
overhead. These are also known as connected PAC's.
  The PAC functions as a conduit for individual members of the 
organization to contribute to political campaigns. Members of labor 
unions, trade and health associations, and corporate employees are 
encouraged to make voluntary contributions to their group's PAC--
separate segregated funds--which in turn makes contributions directly 
to political candidates.
  The other one-quarter of PAC's are not affiliated with sponsoring 
organizations. These are ``nonconnected'' PAC's, defined by law as 
``political committees''--groups which raise or spend more than $1,000 
in a calendar year. Whereas connected PAC's are required by law to 
limit their fundraising appeals to designated groups of people--that 
is, members or employers--nonconnected PAC's are not limited in whom 
they can solicit for funds.
  Nonconnected PAC's typically are ideologically oriented and often 
single-issue groups.
  Under current law, all PAC's are allowed to contribute to Federal 
candidates a maximum of $5,000 in primary elections and $5,000 in 
general elections.
  Mr. President, speaking in a situation such as this, it is, indeed, 
unusual at this time of the day--let me say that when I was growing up 
I was a shy young man, and I would sometimes give my speeches with no 
audiences--and I look about the Senate and galleries I nearly achieved 
that. So you grow up to become a Senator where you can give your 
speeches with no audience, at least not in the Chamber, except for 
staff and probably at this hour of day even my mother is not listening, 
but I hope if citizens are listening they will understand PAC's and 
what is really going on here. Very few people understand 
campaign finance. Some people say that raising money for campaigns is a 
terrible business. Let me say it is a hard business. The part I least 
like about running for reelection is raising the money. I would rather 
not do that more than any other part of my job, and all jobs have some 
part of it that people do not like.

  So, those of us in politics do not like to raise money. We do not get 
the money ourselves. It goes into our fund where it is regulated and 
reported and any reporter can write a story about any campaign report 
on any day of the week, and that is a fact of life.
  But it is a sad fact. Somehow the women and men who run for office 
have got to raise money to communicate and to travel about their 
district. Even if you are just going to go around and give speeches, 
you have to drive from one town to another, you have to advertise where 
you will be to someone. You have to have someone to organize your 
meetings. You have to have some staff to help you do press releases. 
Even if you are going to run a bare bones campaign, you can spend a 
good deal of money.
  There is also a lot of misunderstanding about campaign finance. For 
example, yesterday we had a nationwide story saying that a certain 
Congressman from Oklahoma was defeated and the person who ran against 
him only spent a few thousand dollars. But today I read in the morning 
paper that, in fact, if you counted the independent expenditures made 
against this Congressman, he probably did not spend as much in total as 
his opposition did. The independent expenditures are not counted in how 
much the candidate spends. So let us keep that in mind. There is a lot 
of falsity and a lot of misleading information floating around.
  Now, the history of PAC's, which my amendment would eliminate:
  While PAC's often are thought of as a recent phenomenon, in fact, 
they date back to the 1940's.
  Labor unions, prohibited by law in 1943 from making direct 
contributions to candidates in Federal elections, began to establish 
separate segregated funds to conduct fundraising and contribution 
activities on behalf of their organizations.
  Corporations did not follow labor's lead. Corporations had been 
prohibited since 1907 from making contributions to federal election 
campaigns, and were reluctant to start PAC's.
  In the early 1970's, a number of legal, judicial, and administrative 
actions occurred which resulted in exponential PAC-proliferation. Since 
passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1974, the number of 
PAC's increased from 608 to 4,729 in 1992. Total PAC contributions to 
Federal election candidates increased from $8.5 million in 1974 to $189 
million in 1992.
  In 1992, PAC contributions comprised 24 percent of Senate campaign 
receipts and 38 percent of House campaign receipts. House incumbent 
Democrats' have been particularly reliant on PAC's to fund their 
campaigns. PAC's accounted for 52 percent of their campaign receipts in 
the 1992 election cycle, so House Democrats are understandably 
sensitive to the PAC issue.


                          incumbent advantage

  PAC's are touted by their defenders as a means to allow individuals 
to get together and advance their collective interests in politics. 
Presumably, that would include supporting challengers. Yet, in 1992, in 
races where Members were up for reelection, incumbents received 86 
percent of the PAC contributions--$126 million for incumbents versus 
$21 million for challengers.
  Overall, PAC's distributed the sum of $161,095,460 to congressional 
candidates in 1992; $24,014,048--15 percent--went to candidates running 
for open seats. Thus the PAC's really just picked the incumbents they 
support. They do not care about ideology or anything. They just support 
whoever they think is going to win, and that is usually incumbent in 
the House.
  Since the 1970's, PAC's increasingly have funneled contributions to 
incumbents with little or no regard for ideology or voting records. 
Corporate and trade association PAC's give upward of 90 percent of 
their PAC contributions to incumbents. PAC's epitomize the perception 
of special interest influence that has eroded the American people's 
confidence in Government. That is why Republicans have led the fight to 
zero-out PAC contributions.
  Mr. President, one of the reasons I voted last year for cloture and 
final passage of S. 3, the Senate's version of campaign finance reform, 
was the successful inclusion of my amendment which bans political 
action committees from participating in campaigns of candidates for 
Federal office. Unlike the original version S. 3, which only addressed 
PAC participation in Senate elections, my amendment banned PAC's from 
both Senate and House election campaigns. The original version of S. 3 
was seriously flawed in my estimation because it banned PAC's only from 
Senate campaigns. I seriously questioned the merit of a bill that 
condemns a practice for Senators, but encourages it for House Members.
  In the last several years, we have seen many bills in the Congress 
purporting to be campaign reform legislation. Simply because the media 
or some public interest group labels a bill campaign reform does not 
necessarily make it so. Often the use of this term involves 
considerable poetic license.

  My amendment, which the Senate adopted, prohibited PAC's from 
participating in all campaigns for Federal office. The amendment 
provided that only an individual, or a candidate's committee, or a 
political party committee may make contributions, solicit or receive 
contributions, or make expenditures for the purpose of influencing an 
election for Federal office. PAC's would be outlawed from the business 
of political fundraising and contribution-making for Federal office.
  I am convinced that when people say they want campaign reform, what 
they are saying is get rid of PAC's. PAC's are publicly perceived to be 
organizations with large amounts of money ready to be lavished on 
candidates for Federal office in return for access and influence with 
those receiving the contributions. PAC's are playing an increasingly 
larger role in the financing of campaigns for Federal office:
  Since passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act [FECA] in 1974, 
the number of PAC's has increased from 608 to 4,729 in 1992; PAC 
contributions to House and Senate candidates increased from $8.5 
million in 1974 to $189 million in 1992; in 1974, 9 percent of winners 
in the House of Representatives received over half their funds from 
PAC's. In 1990, 55 percent of House winners received over half their 
funds from PAC's.
  And, incidentally, those are almost all Democrats who run with the 
support of organized labor and the teachers unions and so forth.
  PAC contributions as a percentage of congressional candidates' 
overall receipts in general elections has steadily increased every year 
since 1974, starting at 15.7 percent in that year to 33.8 percent in 
1990.
  In 1992, PAC's contributed 24 percent of Senate campaign receipts; In 
1992, PAC's contributed 38 percent of House campaign receipts; In 1992, 
incumbents received 89 percent of all PAC contributions, $119,779,287 
versus $17,302,125 for challengers; and corporate and trade association 
PAC's give over 90 percent of their money to incumbents.
  With my amendment, all PAC's or segregated separate funds in the 
parlance of the Federal code, maintained by unions, corporations, trade 
and health associations, membership organizations, cooperatives, and 
corporations without capital stock--savings and loans/shareholder 
insurance companies--would no longer be able to participate in Federal 
elections. Also prohibited from participating in Federal elections 
would be nonconnected PAC's or those not affiliated with a sponsoring 
organization, such as Emily's List, the type of PAC which is comprised 
of ideological and single-issue interests.
  So, Mr. President, what we are trying to eliminate is all these 
PAC's, and I have just gone through them. The Pressler amendment would 
have eliminated all PAC's. We passed it here in the Senate. The 
amendment's prohibitions included the segregated separate funds, in the 
parlance of the Federal Code, maintained by unions, corporations, trade 
and health associations, membership organizations, cooperatives, and 
corporations without capital stock, who can now have PAC's, savings and 
loans and shareholder insurance companies--all these entities would no 
longer be able to have their PAC's participate in Federal elections. 
Also included would be the unconnected PAC's, those not affiliated with 
a sponsor organization, such as Emily's List.
  Let me say a word or two about this, another phenomena of this 
campaign reform bill. Regardless of what your position on abortion is, 
the proponents and opponents of abortion are treated differently in the 
Democrat's campaign reform bill. Let me tell you why.
  There is an exemption for Emily's List from bundling. They can do as 
much bundling as they want. Emily's List is a feminist PAC or feminist 
organization, not necessarily, and it organizes bundling, that is 
checks are collected and gathered together and given to a candidate, 
but are reported as individual contributions.
  Now the Right to Life organization, on the other hand, will be 
prohibited from bundling. They could go out and do that. And why is it 
that the extremely liberal Democrats are treating the proabortion 
forces in a more favorable way than they are the antiabortion forces? I 
would say that whether if you are for or against abortion, this Emily's 
List exemption is something that you should look into.
  I have grown a bit weary of the liberal Democrats preaching morality 
and preaching campaign reform when in their own bill, they are doing 
something very unfair to a group that they do not agree with, namely, 
the Right to Life group. But Right to Life is treated exactly the 
opposite as Emily's List. Emily's List has the reputation as the most 
so-called feminist and so-called proabortion group in the United 
States. And that is all right. It has every right to exist.
  But why is it treated at a different level than Right to Life? Can 
anyone tell me? I think the answer is because Emily's List propounds 
those beliefs that are held by the extreme left in the Senate of the 
United States. That is the truth of what is going on here. That is what 
I mean. This whole thing is a sham. This whole campaign reform bill is 
a lot of nonsense. It is an embarrassment to the Senate, and 
several newspaper editorials have said that. It is an embarrassment 
that we are standing here talking about this legislation because it is 
not a reform bill at all. It has been manufactured by the very liberal 
incumbers to protect themselves and their friends in the PAC community.

  My amendment the Pressler amendment, redefined political committees 
so that only the campaign committees of candidates and National, State, 
and local political parties could make contributions or solicit or 
receive contributions or spend money to influence Federal elections.
  The amendment contained a provision that should a ban on PAC's be 
determined to be unconstitutional, then PAC contributions of $1,000 
would be allowed. This is the PAC contribution limit suggested by 
President Clinton during the campaign.
  In the last Congress, this body passed a so-called campaign finance 
reform bill, S. 3, the Senate Election Ethics Act of 1991. It passed on 
a 56 to 42 vote. I voted for it. One of the reasons I did so was 
because it eliminated PAC's, using virtually the same language as my 
amendment. Unfortunately, when it returned to the Senate after the 
House and Senate conferees were done with it, the PAC elimination 
provision was dropped.
  I am afraid history is about to repeat itself. The current House 
amendment to S. 3 guts the original Senate-passed language, which 
included the total ban on PAC's, and inserted its own language, which 
continues to recognize PAC's. President Bush vetoed campaign reform 
legislation that failed to ban PAC's, and I supported him in the 
Congress' unsuccessful attempt to override his veto.
  The public is wary of the perceived influence generated by the large 
fundraising power of PAC's. Big financial contributors are suspect. My 
amendment called for us to do only that which this body did in the last 
Congress--get the PAC's out of elections and give back to the people 
their elected representatives. Let us give the American people the 
action they want--a complete and total PAC ban.
  We have been on this issue for a long time now. My colleague, Senator 
McConnell, has been one of the great leaders on this issue over the 
years on this side of the aisle. I appreciated his assistance in 
developing the PAC ban amendment. I hope my Senate colleagues will 
continue to support elimination of political action committees, and 
hold out for a bill that does so.


                            divergent views

  As I noted earlier, Senate Republicans have led the fight to ban 
PAC's. Democrats, recipients of two-thirds of the PAC money in 
congressional elections, did not address the issue until 3 days before 
the Senate debate on campaign finance reform was scheduled to commence 
in 1990. At that time a new Democratic reform bill, which included the 
Republican PAC-ban, was announced by the majority leader.
  After years of pushing bills designed solely to seize the high ground 
on the reform issue--secure in the knowledge President Bush would veto 
taxpayer funding and spending limits--Democrats are now in the position 
of formulating a bill they can live with after Bill Clinton signs it 
into law. That may explain why, early in 1993, the PAC-ban provision 
Senate Democrats so belatedly included in 1990, had disappeared.
  So the point is, in this whole charade that is going on, the 
Democrats said they were in favor of banning PAC's when they had a bill 
that they knew the President of the United States would veto. But now 
they have a President of the United States who will sign the bill so 
they have changed their position completely. It is such hypocrisy, and 
it should be exposed as such.
  Just prior to the May-June 1993 Senate floor debate, Democrats 
included a flawed PAC contribution ban in their bill. My amendment, 
adopted before final passage of the bill, strengthened the provision.
  After the bill passed the Senate, the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives announced that the PAC contribution ban was not 
acceptable, and Senate and House Democrats have been squabbling about 
it ever since.
  So suddenly the Democrats changed their position entirely. They said 
that a ban on PAC's is fine. They all voted for it. But, as soon as 
President Bush left office and was no longer there to veto the bill 
because of taxpayer financing and other things--and I will talk about 
taxpayer financing of campaigns--as soon as he was gone, they suddenly 
changed their position.
  Mr. President, the Senate had better stand firm on the PAC ban issue 
or an already bad bill will be made a whole lot worse. I cannot support 
campaign finance reform legislation which does not take so basic a step 
as eliminating PAC's.
  Another serious problem with the House-amended Senate bill is its 
creation of a loophole for Emily's List, a special type of PAC that 
specializes in bundling for a particular type of candidate. Emily--the 
acronym for ``Early Money is Like Yeast''--List was founded by IBM 
heiress Ellen Malcolm, who also was a paid staffer for Common Cause 
from 1970-75.
  According to the Almanac of American PACs: 1992, Emily's List only 
supports a candidate who can satisfy the following five conditions: Is 
female; is a Democrat; supports the equal rights amendment; supports 
abortion rights; and demonstrates a reasonable chance to win.
  Now, to me that, as a white, middle-class male, if I may, if it is 
not politically incorrect to say that, I do not know if we have any 
rights left in this country, but that seems to me a very strange set of 
criterion for a group that calls themselves liberal.
  The Almanac goes on to describe Emily's List as a ``contribution 
bundling'' operation. Bundling is a way for political contributors to 
magnify their clout by presenting a candidate with more contributions 
than they would be able to contribute on their own due to Federal 
campaign contribution limits on individuals--$1,000 per election--and 
PACs--$5,000 per election.
  Bundlers, like Emily's List, solicit campaign contributors for 
donations and have the contributors make out their checks to the 
candidate, but instruct the contributors to send or deliver the checks 
to the bundler, so the bundler can present the checks to the candidate.
  This bundling is what the very liberal Democrats are so good at. They 
do this with one hand while working for campaign reform with the other, 
and then they put an exemption for Emily's List in the campaign reform 
bill. It is absolutely amazing.
  The Senate-passed campaign finance bill restricts bundling by 
requiring the bundler to count toward his applicable contribution limit 
any checks bundled for candidates. The House bill also contains the 
restriction, but makes an exemption for nonconnected PAC's. 
Nonconnected PAC's are PAC's that are not connected to a corporation or 
union. They usually are ideologically oriented.
  The House campaign reform bill is nothing like the one the Senate 
passed. Both are bad, but there are big problems with the House bill. 
First, it does not get rid of PAC's like the Senate bill proposed 
because of the Senate's adoption of the Pressler PAC ban amendment. And 
second, it allows bundling by special PAC's, like Emily's List. The 
Senate bill does not give Emily's List any special treatment when it 
cracks down on bundling.
  Bundling, the practice of collecting a lot of campaign checks and 
delivering them to the candidate, is bad because it makes the bundler 
seem more influential than he, she, or it really is. Bundling buys more 
influence with the candidate, far more than the contribution limit the 
law puts on people and PAC's.
  In other words, I can go out and get 40 checks for $1,000 for a 
certain candidate, put them in an envelope, take them and hand them to 
the candidate. This is bundling. And that is an immense potential 
power. And Emily's List is exempted. Whether bundling should or should 
not be right is not the point I am trying to make. I am trying to make 
the point that the very liberal Democrats preserve bundling rights for 
groups that support them the most, such as Emily's List, and eliminate, 
as I have said, other groups that do not support them, such as Right to 
Life. Whether you are for or against abortion, it is unfair to have the 
most proabortion group in the country free to bundle checks for their 
candidates while Right to Life if prohibited. Why so? Where is the 
sense of fairness here in this sham called the campaign reform bill?
  The exception for Emily's List is hypocritical. Why is bundling bad 
for everyone except Emily's List? Apparently the Democrat liberals who 
control the House of Representatives like this group because it backs 
only Democrats, women, and candidates who are proabortion.
  If this nonconnected PAC loophole survives the legislative process 
and is enacted into law, it would be a travesty in the campaign reform 
process. Connected PAC's might try to reorganize themselves as 
nonconnected PAC's so that they, like Emily's List, could remain in the 
business of contributing big amounts of money to political candidates.
  The two major campaign reform watchdogs, Public Citizen and Common 
Cause, have come out against the Emily's List loophole, as has National 
Right to Life, the New York Times, the Washington Times, and the 
Washington Post. The Congress should not allow this loophole to stand 
in any campaign reform legislation it passes.
  The last point I would like to raise at this time against the bill is 
the matter of public financing. The House proposes to provide 
communication vouchers to candidates who comply with voluntary spending 
limits. These communication vouchers would be reimbursed by taxpayer 
dollars from the U.S. Treasury. Even the Senate bill has some modest 
public finances in the form of postal rate subsidies.
  Less than 20 percent of my fellow South Dakotans allow tax dollars to 
be used for public financing of Presidential campaigns. This money is 
designated when you check off on your income tax return tax money to be 
used for the Presidential campaign. In my State, only one-fifth of the 
people check the box on their returns. It is about the same around the 
Nation. That means people really do not believe in this business of 
taxpayer's money paying for campaigns.
  We do not want Government-run campaigns. That would set up more 
Federal bureaucracy. The Federal bureaucrats decide who gets the money. 
That is what this is leading to. That is in this bill that is on the 
floor. You cannot convince me that expanding the taxpayers' 
subsidization of political campaigns to Senators and House Members will 
increase the sentiment of my constituents to underwrite the campaigns 
of politicians. Most likely the percentage will plummet further as the 
folly of spending scarce public resources on nonessential purposes is 
realized.
  My mail from constituents does not tell me to spend more tax dollars 
to finance campaigns for politicians running for office. The letters 
say cut spending, pare back nonessential programs, and do not raise 
taxes. I am following my constituents' wishes by not supporting a 
campaign reform bill that would have precisely the opposite effect.
  Let me say this. Basically, I believe in less Federal Government. If 
the States want to do more, fine. If local government wants to do more, 
maybe it is necessary. Indeed, I feel that the Federal Government is an 
intrusive presence on many of the activities of the daily lives of 
farmers and small businesses and teachers and citizens in my State.
  Let me also say that I believe in taking care of people, helping 
those who need help, and I believe strongly in assisting the very poor 
and the disadvantaged. But most Federal programs do not do that. In 
fact we had all those war-on-poverty programs in the 1960's. And I 
remember them well, because I was one of those who was hopeful they 
would work. None of them have worked. There are just as many poor 
people now, on a percentage basis, probably more. We have just 
institutionalized the problem. And all of those programs were  
failures, if you really analyze them through to the end, because 
nothing has changed. It has aggravated the situation.

  Now let me be perfectly clear. I will not support a final campaign 
reform bill that does not eliminate PAC's or one that contains public 
financing or establishes protections for certain groups like Emily's 
List. PAC dollars, tax dollars, and special favors are not campaign 
reform. They never will be. If a conference committee sends such a bill 
to the Senate, I will oppose it.
  I am hopeful that we will be able to develop a bill that resembles 
real campaign reform, one that bans PAC's, does not rely on public 
financing, and is fair to all. We must do better than we are doing 
today.
  Mr. President, let me make an observation here. Let me make a 
humorous observation, if I may. As I said earlier, when I was a little 
boy I was somewhat shy of public speaking, so I became a Senator where 
I could speak when nobody was listening--virtually nobody in the 
Chamber, or the press galleries. Maybe my mother is listening in South 
Dakota. It is now about 7 o'clock out there so she is probably awake. 
But I hope other people are listening, because this is a very important 
subject and nobody understands or wants to understand what is going on 
with campaign reform.
  As I said, somehow the people of this country found out what was in 
that crime bill that we in this Chamber passed; but I voted against it, 
and people were aghast when they found out what was really in that 
bill.
  Let me say that I am in a position to say that this campaign reform 
bill is in the same category.
  Let me add some quotes from some articles and editorials that have 
come our way.
  From Forbes magazine:

       The Senate-passed campaign finance reform bill is a fraud. 
     It is nothing more than an incumbent protection act * * * .

  That is from Forbes. Maybe we would expect that from Forbes. Somebody 
would say, well that is probably a business magazine.
  Here we have the New York Times. A liberal paper. Unapologetic, 
politically correct. I could not criticize the Times. I read it every 
day. It is a fine paper. Its editorial page is unapologetically liberal 
and politically correct, as we say in our time. I think their publisher 
says that, or they are just very open about it. Good for them. At least 
they do not try to be in one place and say another thing in another 
place.
  That is another aspect about this Chamber and about politics in 
America today: Everybody goes home and says they are for campaign 
reform. But here in Washington, DC, they support a bill that is not 
campaign reform. A lot of people talk differently in politics than they 
vote.
  Now, for example, the best way to get elected and reelected to the 
House or the Senate is to vote extremely liberal, to stay close to 
interest groups that are very liberal. But back home, talk 
conservative.
  That is the formula. It is very dangerous to remain a Member of this 
body, to vote conservative, and to talk conservative, because if you 
vote conservative you are going to lose the support of all of the PAC's 
and of all of the special interest groups. Your voting record is sent 
around during elections. They say you voted against everybody. You 
voted against the Government employees; you voted against building a 
new dam; you voted against these various things.

  But conservatives are for a lot of things that are needed. 
Conservatives are not just against. We are positively for State and 
local government taking actions on needed projects that are recognized 
by the local people as needed. We are not for intrusive Federal 
Government. But that is the formula that is used. It is absolutely 
phenomenal.
  The way to get elected and reelected to Congress, generally speaking, 
is to vote very liberally, deny it back home, talk conservative. That 
way you get the financial support of the special interests, and an 
amazing amount of money.
  People assume you are pretty conservative from your speeches--that is 
exactly what is happening in this particular bill. People are talking 
about campaign reform back home, but they are supporting a bill here 
that has no reform in it, but just protection of incumbents. The New 
York Times wrote about Emily's loophole. I already talked about that 
here today, bundling. How they gave an exception to this proabortion 
group, while not allowing Right to Life to have it. I think we should 
be well aware of that.
  Next, an editorial entitled ``Emily's Lesson,'' the Washington Post. 
Another story of how the liberal Democrats want to exempt their groups, 
their favored groups, without allowing the more conservative groups to 
have the same exception. And by the way, I do not think either group 
should have that exemption. That is neither here nor there. ``Partisan 
Campaign Finance Reform,'' another fine editorial from the Washington 
Times.
  Next we come to the Chicago Tribune, ``Campaign Finance Reform, No 
Friend of Democracy.'' It tells about how the U.S. Senate is in one of 
its periodic attempts to banish public cynicism about campaign 
financing without banishing any of the fortunate souls now installed in 
the U.S. Senate which has approved a bill. Majority Leader Mitchell 
said we will reduce the money in Federal election campaigns, and so 
forth.
  Next we have an editorial from ``Roll Call'' about ditching the 
spending limits. It goes on and on.
  So, there are, across the country, some people catching on to what is 
going on here. There are some people who know what a sham this whole 
thing is. But I do not know if the general public does. And that is 
part of the purpose of this debate, to make an effort to cry out with 
some facts about how Emily's List is treated differently than Right to 
Life, for example. And about how public financing is coming in the door 
with this, while people are told back home that that is not the case. 
The business of saying one thing, in Washington, DC, and saying 
something else back home. That is what this is all about. So we are 
trying to say what it really is.
  I have an editorial entitled ``Common Gridlock.'' We talked a little 
bit about Common Cause and I want to say a few words about our good 
friends at Common Cause. They would purport to be a bipartisan, fair 
group. But they are extremely partisan. They support and are in 
collaboration with the liberal Democrats, and the liberal elements of 
the press. And they have become a fraud in this whole process.
  I very much admire a Senator from North Carolina, a Democrat, who has 
now departed this body, but at one point he was chairman of a committee 
that had some dealings with Common Cause. Even he wrote them a letter 
and told them what a sham they were.
  Now, people receive mail in my State from Common Cause. It says 
``Congress up for grabs to the highest spenders.'' ``Congress for 
sale.'' ``Special interests corrupting the U.S. Congress.'' ``Flood of 
special interest money keeps Senate from solving pressing problems.'' 
This is the kind of terminology Common Cause mails out.
  Those words and similar ones have been brought to your mailbox 
courtesy of Common Cause, the self-appointed, self-anointed citizens' 
lobby which is again seeking to scare and bludgeon Congress into 
passing its version of campaign finance reform. And now, for the fourth 
Congress in a row, the prospect is of that happening.
  The point is, this article is an expose of what Common Cause really 
is, an expose that states it is not the public interest group that it 
claims to be, that in fact it is aligned with the very liberal 
Democrats, and that is all there is to it. And we should remember that 
as we go along.

  We have a number of other editorials here. From the Chicago Tribune--
the campaign finance ruse--which points out what a fraud this whole 
debate has become in the Congress. Where a bill is put up which will 
protect the incumbents, and which has nothing to do with reform, and 
how the citizens of this country are being fraudulently misled.
  Larry Sabato, the leading political scientist in Virginia, says this 
about campaign reform: ``Beware the election reformers.'' Starts out 
``fraudulent, deceitful, dangerous, nonsensical.'' These are a few of 
the printable words to describe the campaign reform package. That is an 
interesting article, because the academic community is starting to 
chime in a little bit, although I wouldn't be too hopeful about them.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Virtually everyone in the academic community shares 
our view of this bill. It is very, very, difficult to find any academic 
in support of this bill. So it is not an overstatement when the Senator 
says that the academic community is overwhelmingly in our corner on 
this issue.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my friend very much.
  I think that is significant. The academic community is generally 
thought to be liberal Democrat, to put things bluntly, and even they 
say this bill is a sham. That is even further evidence that it is.
  Of course, we have here George Will, we have a number of other 
people, and so forth.
  So, Mr. President, I believe I will start winding up here, summarize 
a little bit. I know that the other Senator from Kentucky had asked me 
to yield for some questions, and I would be glad to yield to him for 
questions but not to give up the floor. I did not mean to be 
disrespectful. When another Member asks to yield for questions, I 
normally yield. But I did not because I wanted to make my presentation 
first.
  Let me summarize by saying that I am in favor of campaign reform. But 
that is the same sentence every Member of the house and Senate will 
say. It is fine with me. The part of my job I like least is raising 
money. I yearn for the day when I can sign my last FEC report, and 
close my committee down. That is going to be one of the happiest days 
of my life when that comes, when I finally can stop my campaign 
committee, and when I no longer have to have a campaign fund to pay for 
legitimate expenses. I am absolutely tired of the FEC. I spend 
thousands of dollars a year meeting FEC regulations and requirements. 
At any minute, I could be sued by somebody, I suppose, for making some 
little mistake in my FEC reports. This is the most unpleasant part of 
my job. But I do not know what to substitute for it--certainly not this 
piece of legislation. Am I going to say the taxpayers should pay for my 
campaigns? No. That is what this bill says. Am I going to say PAC's 
should pay for my campaigns permanently? No. That is what this bill 
says. Am I going to say that some very liberal group such as Emily's 
List can be exempted from bundling? No.

  So, Mr. President, that is where I stand. I repeat my offer to the 
other Senator from Kentucky, if he has questions. He came on the floor 
and tried to ask me a question earlier, but I was presenting some 
material and I wanted to finish it. I did not mean to be disrespectful 
to him. I would be happy to engage in questions and answers with 
anybody, provided that I do not have to yield the floor.
  So, Mr. President, let us go forward and say in Washington, DC, the 
same thing that we say in our campaign speeches back home. I will be 
returning to my State in October--I am not up for reelection this year, 
but I am going to be about my State and having receptions for State 
legislative candidates, and I am going from county to county trying to 
help them. I hope I do not hurt them too much. I will campaign for 
members of my party in our State races. I spend time every 2 years 
volunteering my services to any county organization in my State. They 
usually invite me, but I emphasize that anybody who has Washington tags 
on them might be more harmful than helpful in terms of endorsing 
candidates.
  Nevertheless, I will be holding open meetings in my State. We have a 
small population, compared to some other States and, therefore, 
citizens can directly speak with their Senator and can come to meetings 
and ask questions. Perhaps our meeting agenda and questions and answers 
is more exhaustive than some of those from larger States where it is 
almost impossible to reach a very big portion of the population. I 
shall be telling them the truth about this campaign reform bill. I will 
be telling them the truth about what is really going on here.
  We have a phenomenon in my State in that the leading chain newspapers 
are extremely liberal. They praise liberal politicians and they praise 
liberal ideals. By ``liberal,'' I mean in the partisan sense of it, 
because we are all liberals when it comes to human rights and some 
other things. It is in the modern political science sense that I am 
using the term. I do not know the reason for their liberalism. Maybe it 
sells more newspapers. But these papers do not tell the truth. They do 
not publish voting records on the Members of Congress because they want 
to protect liberal Democrats who are incumbents.
  This campaign reform bill is yet another extension of that protection 
of the liberal Democrat incumbents. It is an extremely amazing thing 
how all these interest groups work together, such as Common Cause, the 
left-wing of the Democratic Party, and the interest groups that give 
them so much money. So we are in a situation where we are trying to use 
these speeches to educate anybody who will listen and to let them know 
what is really going on here in this Senate of the United States.
  I will close by thanking my colleague from Kentucky for this effort. 
I think it is a very important event in our Nation's history that we 
work on campaign reform, real campaign reform. I do not believe there 
has ever been as skillful a parliamentary maneuver as the Senator from 
Kentucky has devised at present to allow us to use our time discussing 
in a concrete way the reforms we very much need.
  I know my friend from Indiana is waiting to speak, so I will wrap up 
here. I thank the Senators who did the graveyard shift, because they 
contributed a great deal. I hope that the citizens of our country will 
hear us out. I know the national newspapers are going to all report and 
have headlines that the Republicans are blocking the campaign reform 
bill. We are not blocking a reform bill. We are blocking this bill 
which is not a campaign reform bill. The ban on PAC's came from the 
Republican side of the aisle. We sponsored a real campaign reform bill. 
But there is not one before us today.
  (Mrs. BOXER assumed the chair.)
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I yield to my friend from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, before my friend from South Dakota 
leaves the floor, I thank him for his important contribution to this 
discussion, not just in the past hour but over the years. I will remind 
our colleagues once again that it was the Senator from South Dakota who 
offered the amendment that abolished political action committees. He 
has been our leader in attempting to abolish, or at least diminish 
significantly, the significance of PAC's, and I commend him for his 
statesmanship in that regard.
  Of course, as the Senator from South Dakota commented at the end of 
his remarks, we are proud to be here today to let some light shine on 
this bill. We have two goals. One is to kill this unfortunate piece of 
legislation, to drive a stake through its heart for one last time after 
7 long years. And also to inform the public what is being perpetrated 
here at the 11th hour--a new entitlement program for us, at taxpayer's 
expense, here at the 11th hour.
  I see my friend and colleague from Indiana here. We welcome his 
participation. I say, as I yield the floor, that we have more speakers 
than we have time for. We are getting additional calls now that the sun 
has risen. We will try to accommodate as many as we can as we finish up 
the 30 hours.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I want to repeat the phrase that has been 
deservedly given to the Senator from Kentucky for his prodigious 
efforts on this important piece of legislation. I doubt if there is an 
individual in America that is better versed in the entire subject of 
campaign finance than the Senator from Kentucky. He has displayed a 
mastery of this subject that is seldom seen on the Senate floor. He 
knows the intricacies, ins and outs, ups and downs, and he has been a 
persistent, tireless, champion of reform in the correct sense and a 
persistent, tireless, opponent of the so-called reform that I think he 
so aptly describes as a new entitlement program, which is for a very 
special class. It is an entitlement program not for a group of 
Americans perhaps suffering from some concern that Congress could 
address, but an entitlement for the 535 Members of the U.S. Congress, 
paid for by the American taxpayer.
  I commend the Senator as he leaves the floor for his efforts in 
arranging this opportunity for Members of our party to stand and, at 
length, support his efforts and point out to the American people just 
what the U.S. Congress and Senate is attempting to do in the waning 
hours of this, the 103d Congress.
  We only have a couple of weeks left, or so, before we adjourn for the 
campaign. There are important appropriations matters that need to be 
dealt with before we adjourn. Those are the items that we ought to be 
discussing here on this floor. But to bring this bill to this floor at 
this time, so that a claim can be made that the Congress has responded 
to the will of the people, the cry of the people for reform, I think is 
perpetrating something on them that they are going to find out is not 
what they had in mind when they asked for a change and reform in 
Congress.
  Throughout our Nation's history, indeed throughout the entire course 
of human events there has been enthusiasm, moral fervor, and most of 
all, the passionate conviction that this program, or that program, or 
this policy, or that policy, is going to save the Nation, is going to 
save the world, is going to save and solve the problem that exists. And 
so it seems that every other major piece of legislation that comes 
before us has the word ``reform'' in it. Somehow, if we can just insert 
the word reform into the title of a bill, then it is viewed as good 
Government; it is viewed as Congress being responsive to the needs of 
the people; it is viewed as an effort to bring about a transformation 
of existing policies and imposing new policies, which new policy will 
right the wrongs of the past.
  But as philosopher George Santayana said: ``Ultimately, it is all 
fraud.'' In his famous work ``The Life of Reason'' he wrote:

       A thousand reforms have left the world as corrupt as ever. 
     For each successful reform is founded a new institution, and 
     this institution has bred its new and congenial abuses.

  Around the turn of the century, reform movements in New York were so 
popular they led to the formation of what were called good government 
clubs. Later, however, after these so-called good government clubs were 
formed, and in themselves became institutions, they became better known 
by a different name, a slightly more disdainful name; they were 
referred to by New Yorkers as the Goo-goos, or the Goo-goo clubs.
  Madam President, we have seen a lot of goo-goo reform come out of 
this session of Congress and so-called reform come out of this 
administration and its agenda, and the leadership of the Congress. We 
have had health care reform. We have had the promise but not the 
reality of welfare reform. And we have even seen, I believe, what could 
be characterized as foreign policy reform. In every instance, what may 
have been a good idea has been transformed into the kind of reform that 
Santayana says ``simply breeds and founds a new institution which will 
in itself breed new abuses.''
  Usually when reform bills are presented, we find that once we get 
beyond the rhetoric, the promise of change, the promise of reform, we 
end up with a bill that not only corrupts its original intent but 
ultimately, and almost inevitably, increases the power and the 
authority of the Federal Government, threatens individual freedoms 
guaranteed by the Constitution, and drains from the American taxpayer 
millions of dollars in new subsidies to fund reform.
  We spent a considerable amount of time this year discussing health 
care reform. The promise of health care reform and the rhetoric of 
health care reform was that every American would have a little plastic 
card to carry around in their pocket, and that plastic card would 
simplify their life; that plastic card would guarantee them better 
health care, and provide it in a more efficient manner, provide it in a 
more cost-effective manner; we would remove from current health care 
system all the abuses and all the inefficiencies and all of the 
inequities, and the provision of this little plastic card would give 
Americans a reform they have been looking for in health care.
  So the rhetoric and goals, as outlined by the President in his 
address to the Congress, were goals which we all applauded. But then 
the reality hit. The reality was a monstrosity of a piece of 
legislation, weighing 14 pounds, containing 1,300-plus pages of what 
this so-called reform was supposed to be. As we examined that 
legislation and all of its variations, we discovered that Santayana's 
words were prophetic indeed, because that reform founded not only a new 
institution; that reform expanded the role of Government in the lives 
of American citizens and in directing the economy of this country in an 
unprecedented way, in a manner that has never been attempted before, 
50-plus new Government bureaus and agencies, 270 some new duties and 
responsibilities mandated to the States, 870-some new duties and 
responsibilities for the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 71 new 
duties and responsibilities for the Secretary of Labor. It was almost 
incomprehensible to imagine the number of agencies, the number of new 
Government bureaucrats, the number of new Government functions that 
would have been created under this legislation all in the name of 
promising simplicity, all in the name of promising cost-effectiveness, 
all in the name of guaranteeing new rights, yet at the same time 
denying freedom for tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans.

  So that so-called reform which came ironically at a time when there 
was a growing consensus among both liberals and conservatives, 
Democrats and Republicans, that the last great social reform 
experiment, welfare reform, was now a dismal, utter failure. Instead of 
promising freedom to individuals caught in the trap of poverty, welfare 
reform has created a whole new class of dependency.
  I am not here this morning to talk about the failure of welfare. That 
is a program that has not lived up to its promise or produced the 
desired results and, in fact, created as many problems as it solved, 
and that is something this Congress will have to address.
  Nor am I here really to talk about health care reform because we have 
spent a great deal of time doing that and I have tried to be outspoken 
in support of meaningful changes in our health care system that will 
bring efficiency of service and delivery of health care to 255 million 
Americans, but in opposition to the gargantuan monstrosity that was 
presented to us on this floor based upon the premise that somehow 
Government, the infusion of Government oversight, an infusion of 
Government bureaucracy, was going to bring about more efficiency in our 
economy; that we could carve out 15 percent of the current economy, 
market-based health care system that operates in this country--we could 
carve that out. And if we put Government bureaucrats and the Congress 
in an oversight position, in a regulatory position, we could make this 
system work better.
  I raised the question to Mrs. Clinton when she came before our 
combined meeting with the Senate Finance Committee and Labor and Human 
Resources Committee. I said: Mrs. Clinton, what you presented here 
appears to me to be based upon some false premises. It is based on the 
premise that Government is more efficient than the private sector. Yet, 
I cannot think of one Government entity that performs a service for the 
American people more efficiently than the private sector when the two 
are in competition.
  I said: Perhaps you can name one for me, but in my review of the 
services that are provided by this Government in comparison to a 
comparable service provided by the private sector, I cannot think of a 
comparable situation. Nor can I come up with a Government service that 
is more cost effective in delivering that service.
  We have a history in this country of creating Government programs 
with a promise or a projection that the expenditure will be a certain 
amount and cost to the taxpayer, and yet the reality is that that 
expenditure generally exceeds the promise by a multiple of several 
times over what was anticipated.
  I gave her some examples and suggested that perhaps she knows of a 
program where Government has met its goal of delivering that service 
and met and retained the cap on cost that it had promised to the 
American taxpayer. Every bill that comes before us, we get these 
projections from the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of 
Management and Budget that will say this will only cost the taxpayer x 
dollars. And yet, as we go back and review these programs, we find that 
the cost inevitably escalates far beyond our original projections.
  The other problem that I pointed out to her is that Congress is a 
political body, and as a political body it is subject to the inevitable 
temptations of yielding to outside pressure, outside interests, of 
adding to what was originally intended because we love to say yes and 
it is difficult to say no. It is a lot more fun going back home to your 
constituents and saying: Yes, I heard your request and yes, I think we 
can deliver.
  It is not fun at all to go home and say: Yes, I heard your request 
but I know we cannot deliver. We do not have the funding, so we will 
have to raise your taxes.
  Because we have the ability to float debt, we are in the unique 
position, unlike any other institution in the world--the American 
family, American business, universities, any other institution--every 
other institution knows that when it goes into debt, it inevitably has 
to pay that debt, and that interest cost is going to mount, and too 
much debt will bring down the institution.
  Only Government has the ability to go into the basement and print 
more money and float new debt and postpone a day of reckoning--beyond 
what? Beyond our political careers, beyond the next election. So now we 
stand at a $4.6 trillion national debt. That is going to have to be 
paid someday by our children or our children's children. And it is 
going to stifle and crimp and deny the ability of the American economy 
to be a vibrant, healthy, dynamic, growing economy as we become saddled 
more and more with debt and more and more with debt created by 
entitlement programs that this Congress enacts.
  So now we are looking at a brand-new entitlement program, an 
entitlement program that seems to me to be the most outrageous use of 
all entitlement suggestions. This is not an entitlement program for a 
special class of American people, unless there is just one very unique 
special class that is going to benefit from this entitlement program, 
and that unique special class happens to be the 100 Members of the U.S. 
Senate and the 435 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
  What a gift this would be to the Members of Congress, particularly 
the incumbents, who now will no longer have to take their case to the 
people that they represent to fund their elections, but can simply draw 
on the Federal Treasury of money extracted from the American taxpayer 
to finance their political careers.
  Now, as we have learned with all other entitlement programs, once you 
create an entitlement, a lot of people want to take advantage of that 
entitlement, so there is going to be a proliferation of candidates 
running for office because there is a pot of gold waiting for those who 
put their names on the ballot. That pot of gold is a pot of gold 
created by the taxpayer, put into a fund, and then drawn on by those 
seeking office.
  Of course, the beauty of it all is that the incumbents, those who are 
already well known, who have established their name identity with the 
people that they represent, will be matched with individuals who do not 
have that name recognition, who do not have the opportunity to be on 
the evening news and to be quoted and to have the taxpayers fund their 
visits back to the State and their meetings throughout the year with 
the Rotary Club and the PTA and the Good Government Club, and the 
various other functions that we attend.
  So they have already a built-in advantage, and now the expenditures 
are going to be equalized between the candidates, and those whose 
salaries are paid by the American taxpayer are going to have their 
campaigns, their campaign expenses, paid as well. It is the ultimate in 
entitlements.
  In 1991, in testimony before the Rules Committee, an official of 
Justice Department made the following point, which I believe should be 
the guiding principle of any bill that purports to reform campaign 
financing, and I quote him:

       It should never be forgotten that by protecting robust 
     debate and broad criticism of competing candidates, the first 
     amendment was the most important electoral reform ever 
     enacted.

  And yet, in the bill before us, the so-called reform contained in 
this bill desecrates the first amendment and every American's right to 
free speech. Under this bill, any candidate who chooses to exercise his 
right not to participate or to spend over the limit, any candidate who 
chooses the right to seek financing outside this system that exceeds 
the limit, that candidate would not only be deprived of the taxpayer 
financed benefits his opponent would receive--communications vouchers, 
reduced mail rates, super broadcast discounts--but that candidate would 
also be subject to a series of punitive provisions that I believe 
violate the first amendment. Let me name some of them:
  The so-called scarlet letter disclaimer. Any candidate who declined 
to participate in the entitlement scheme of having the taxpayers 
finance their election would be forced to run a disclaimer at the end 
of every political ad, and that disclaimer would read: This candidate 
has not agreed to voluntary campaign spending limits.
  The clear implication is that if you extracted from the taxpayers 
money to pay for your campaign, you are a model candidate, you are a 
good citizen, but if you paid for your campaign through legitimate 
donations from your contributors, you are somehow a shady character. 
Because at the end of every ad, you would have to say, and this would 
have to be stated: This candidate has got agreed to voluntary campaign 
spending limits.
  Why not put a big ``V'' on their chest as they campaign throughout 
the district; ``Violator, violator; this person decided to fund the 
campaign from contributions of the people who elect him instead of 
taking it from taxpayers all over the country.''
  If I hear one thing more than any other statement about the so-called 
campaign financing paid for by the taxpayer, it is people that come up 
to me and say: I will be darned if I am going to have my hard-earned 
money used to finance a campaign of Senator So-and-So or Congressman 
Such-and-Such. I do not agree with one thing that persons stands for. 
If I lived in his State, I would move. You mean to tell me that you are 
going to pass a bill that would require me, would force me, to take the 
money that I earn and give it to Candidate Such-and-such? I would 
rather go to jail than give that candidate money. I will give money to 
whomever I please, whomever I want to support, the person that I 
believe best reflects what I believe in that will carry my message to 
Washington. I will be darned if I am going to send my money to someone 
who is going to go there and speak exactly what I do not want to hear 
and stand for exactly what I do not want to believe and pass 
legislation that I do not support. That is my right as an American. How 
can you take that right away from me?
  When all else is said and done on this legislation, when we finish 
talking about PAC's and about soft money and about everything else, it 
ultimately comes down to are we going to force the American taxpayer to 
pay for the campaign of someone that that person does not support, does 
not believe in, and does not think ought to be a Member of this 
Congress. That is what it ultimately comes down to. That is the 
fundamental question we are debating here.
  That is why Republicans are staying up all night working graveyard 
shifts to use any possible device that we can to explain this to the 
American people and to say, ``No, we, as a party, do not stand for the 
principle that the taxpayer is going to be forced to fund a candidate 
that they do not support.''
  That is the bottom line. That is what this is all about. That is why 
we are here and that is why we will stand here and talk until we 
absolutely have no other option, until it is taken away from us, until 
it is ended. We are going to talk and talk and talk, because this is an 
outrage that is being perpetrated on the American people, and the 
Republican Party does not support it and will not support it, and we 
will do everything we can to stop it, even if it kills the bill that 
sounds good--campaign finance reform. But is a rotten piece of 
legislation.
  Well, I was talking about the desecration of first amendment rights. 
You know, this bill also directs the Federal Government to counteract 
those who exercise their own first amendment rights to speak out 
against a candidate that they do not support by underwriting their 
opponents response.
  Yes, you heard me right. This bill requires that if a candidate does 
not abide by the provisions of this law and decides not to take 
taxpayer funds to fund his campaign, this bill provides that the 
taxpayer has to underwrite his opponent's response. It almost defies 
credulity here to think that not only are we going to require 
individuals to fund campaigns of individuals they do not support, but 
if the person they do support decides that he is not going to 
participate in this forced extortion of funds from the taxpayer to pay 
for Federal campaigns, that their money has to be used to pay for the 
response that the opponent gives to the ads or the campaigning of the 
person they do support.
  This bill tramples on political speech protected by the first 
amendment. It tramples on the tenth amendment by proposing Federal 
regulations in virtually ever aspect of State party activity undertaken 
during a Federal election. This bill, like health care reform, like 
welfare reform, will not work because the bill accomplishes none of the 
stated objectives.
  As former President Bush so aptly pointed out in his veto message in 
a previous attempt to pass this legislation, not only will it serve to 
perpetuate the corrupting influence of the special interests and the 
imbalance between challengers and incumbents and limit speech protected 
by the first amendment, but it will inevitably lead to a raid on the 
Treasury to pay for the act's elaborate scheme of public subsidies.
  What are those subsidies? The subsidies provided for in this bill 
could amount to well over $100 million every election year cycle--you 
heard me right, well over $100 million every election cycle--drummed up 
from the taxpayer to fund our campaigns.
  Yet, like other reforms, this bill is silent on how these Government 
subsidies would be financed. When is the last time grandiose promises 
were made but little, if anything, was said about how it was going to 
be paid for? Well, it happens routinely, regularly. But we are not that 
far removed from the health care debate.
  Remember? Guaranteed, blue ribbon, Fortune 500-plus benefits for 
every American, including 37 million Americans that now are 
underinsured or uninsured. All those benefits guaranteed. And when you 
stood up and said, ``Well, that would be nice, but how is it going to 
be paid for and who is going to pay?''--you are almost drummed off the 
floor because somehow you were not sensitive enough to the problems 
that existed.
  Every time you ask a question about a Government program--how is it 
going to be paid for--it is almost like you are un-American. I mean, 
``We will finagle that later. We will finesse that. Don't worry about 
it.''
  What inevitably happens is one of two things: Either we go into 
deeper debt, which is what we used to do; or, once in a while, we are 
honest enough to go to the American taxpayers and say we are going to 
have to increase taxes to pay for it. If that is what you want, you are 
going to have to pay for it now because we cannot keep loading on this 
debt.
  But, once again, we are looking at legislation where the question has 
to be raised and has to be asked: Who is going to pay for it? How much 
is it going to cost?
  Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the President's party still 
seems to have a problem recognizing that entitlement programs 
inevitably cost more than what is originally projected and at the same 
time do not deliver what they promise. And as I earlier pointed out, 
the failure of welfare. Just at the time when there is a growing 
consensus that welfare is a dismal failure, along came healthfare, 
which was going to be the greatest entitlement of all, and now we have 
campaign finance reform. I think an argument could be made that we are 
even now entering a time when the administration is promoting a foreign 
entitlement program. The idea that every nation has the right to 
political democracy and, by George, if they do not achieve it, we are 
going to send in the Marines to make sure they achieve it.
  Jeane Kirkpatrick recently wrote an interesting article entitled ``Is 
Democracy an Entitlement?'' I do not intend to spend much time on this 
subject. It is a little bit off the track of what we are talking about, 
but we are talking about entitlements.
  Let me just quote a couple statements from her.
  She said:

       Is there a ``right'' to be governed democratically by 
     rulers chosen in free competitive elections? Does Haiti have 
     such a right?
       The Clinton administration thinks so, and has tried hard 
     for many months to rouse support in the ``international 
     community'' for action that will depose the military 
     government of Haiti and restore elected president Jean-
     Bertrand Aristide.

  It is interesting. She says:

       No European ally of the United States will participate in 
     the military phase of the Haitian operation. No major 
     Government of this hemisphere will join in the invasion.

  She says:

       The fundamental justification for the use of force is that 
     democracy should be restored. But the case being made for 
     intervention finally depends on a postulated ``right to 
     democratic government'' of which the Haitians have been 
     deprived.

  She says:

       But the idea of a ``right to democracy'' that can be 
     imposed by force is a dramatic departure from previous theory 
     and practice-*-*-*.
       This ``democratic entitlement'' is rich in implications. If 
     political democracy is viewed as ``a human right'' shared by 
     all persons and if the ``world community'' has an obligation 
     to use force to protect those rights, then of course it is 
     appropriate to use force to depose Haiti's military 
     government--or any other government that achieves power by 
     force and violates its citizens' rights.
       If we act against the government of Haiti on these grounds 
     we should understand that it may be necessary to act again 
     should President Aristide prove deficient in his respect for 
     the right of Haitians.

  And there is considerable evidence to suggest that, based on his past 
leadership in the nation of Haiti, so-called democratic leadership, 
those rights were trampled, and that is one of the reasons why he is 
now living in Georgetown instead of Port-au-Prince.

       And if we act against Haiti we should do so understanding 
     that there are today 55 countries judged by the Freedom House 
     analysis to be ``not free'' and another 63 judged to be 
     ``partly free'' as compared with only 72 ``free'' countries.
       If the Clinton administration decides to use force against 
     Haiti rather than against Cuba, China, or any of the other 
     ``non-free'' illegitimate governments that deprive their 
     citizens of demoractic rights, it must be prepared to explain 
     why.

  Why Haiti and not Cuba? Why Haiti and not China? Why Haiti and not 
some 100 other countries around the world which are not free, which are 
not democratically run?

       Freedom and democracy are great goods, but self-government 
     and self-determination and prosperity and peace are also 
     great goods.
       We want all these for ourselves and for others, even as we 
     know that we will not be able to achieve them in the short 
     run.-*-*-*
       It is precisely the bridge Clinton and Christopher must 
     cross on their way to ``restore democracy'' in Haiti. Before 
     they set out on this mission in which no substantive U.S. 
     national interest is at stake, they should ask themselves 
     what precisely they intend to do upon reaching the other 
     side.

  Because if the democracy is a legal entitlement, is a new foreign 
policy of this Nation, then we need to begin to prepare the occupation 
of over 100 countries in this globe.
  I talked about the costs of this entitlement. I said it was going to 
cost at least $100 million a year per election cycle. But that is 
assuming that the number of candidates will stay the same as currently 
exists. But as we have learned from every other entitlement program 
this Nation has enacted, the number of recipients grows exponentially, 
because once you set out to provide a benefit without a corresponding 
cost, the number of recipients of that benefit grows. And we have seen 
that in every entitlement program and the Government has created. And 
why not, if you are going to get something for nothing, why not join 
up?
  In 1992, there were 1,200 more congressional candidates than in 
1990--a stunning increase that no one expected. But how many more 
candidates will we have in 1996 or 1998 if we provide an entitlement to 
those candidates for choosing to run for elective office? How many 
hundreds or thousands of additional independent or third party 
candidates will run if they believe that the taxpayer is going to pay 
for their campaigns?
  If direct candidate campaign spending is subjected to limit, how much 
are independent expenditures going to grow? And how much will we spend 
on the provision to counteract candidates who exceed their spending 
limit?
  This is not a small point because under the Senate bill, for every 
candidate who spends even one penny over the voluntary limit, any 
complying opponent will receive a Government grant equal to one-third 
the general election limit. So if you go one penny over, your opponent 
now becomes eligible to receive a Government grant paid for by the 
taxpayer equal to one-third of the general election limit as set by 
law. That opponent could also receive additional installments of up to 
a total of 100 percent of the general election money. And there is no 
telling how many instances this provision would kick in.
  Madam President, there are many variables to consider but even the 
lowest estimates entail hundreds of millions of dollars of 
expenditures. And, again, like health care reform, no precise cost is 
available because there is no final bill and the variables are 
impossible to predict.
  Democrats have estimated it would cost $90 million every cycle just 
to provide funds to House candidates, and $200,000 per election and yet 
we know--we know that the average cost of an election is growing 
dramatically every year. That $200,000 will soon be nowhere near the 
average cost. So that $90 million figure is a bottom line, a floor that 
reminds us of a lot of other floors and entitlement programs that seem 
so minute now by comparison, to the total cost of that time.
  It is not certain how the Democrats have arrived at the $90 million 
estimate. If only the Republican and Democrat nominee in each House 
election, not a third party candidate--we are seeing a proliferation of 
third party candidates, people getting fed up with the system and want 
to run as an independent--if just of the Republican and Democrat 
nominees in each House, not Senate, each House election, accept 
matching funds, that would cost $174 million. My estimate is that it 
will cost at least $200 million for each 2-year cycle just for House 
matching funds, and to counter the expected increase in independent 
expenditures.
  The Republican Policy Committee estimated that the Government cost 
for a 2-year year election cycle would range from a low of $207 million 
to a high of $296 million, depending on the variables.
  The Congressional Budget Office's low-ball estimates predict $189 
million in 1996 alone if both House and Senate bills provide matching 
funds. That will increase to $203 million in 1998.
  So what we are told as to the cost of this legislation, is already 
grossly underestimated.
  As evidenced by the anemic response that the IRS has witnessed 
lately, with regard to that little checkoff box on our Federal income 
tax return--you know the one that you look up on your tax return and 
there is a little box there that says if you would like to contribute a 
$1 donation to the Presidential election fund, put a little check in 
there? Well, there has been a dramatic decline in the number of 
taxpayers who have chosen to check that box.
  This is just for Presidential elections. You could argue that a 
national election, there ought to be some national expression of 
support, at least on a voluntary basis. But it is clear the American 
taxpayer does not feel a very great need to have the Federal Government 
invest their campaign dollars for them.
  Again, as in health care reform and welfare reform, the American 
people are catching on. They are smart enough to see reform when they 
see it. But they are also smart enough to recognize it when they do not 
see it. They no longer are fooled by a title of a bill that contains 
the word ``reform''. They are looking ascance--in fact it is like a red 
flag, ``oh, oh, here comes another reform bill. Hold on to your wallet. 
Let's check this one out.''
  The American people have rejected phoney health care reform. They are 
leery of promised welfare reform. And I would wager that if we give 
them a chance to vote on it, they will reject campaign financing 
reform.
  I would like to talk a little bit about this idea of soft money and 
hard money, because to date, the campaign finance debate has been based 
not on the, what I would call good government arguments, but more on 
good politics arguments, because the bill is not, in my opinion, about 
spending limits, it is about taxpayer financing, and it is about 
protecting incumbents.
  I think a look at the whole issue of hard and soft money will tell us 
why proponents of the Senate and House bills loudly proclaim this bill 
will shut down soft money. But like so-called reform claims on other 
issues, this claim is far from accurate, because what both the House 
and Senate bills do is selectively regulate soft money--not shut it 
down--selectively regulate it, and I would contend regulate it for 
political advantage.
  Now before I continue here, let me state the distinction between hard 
money and soft money. Hard honey is money raised and spent directly by 
a candidate's committee. It is listed in the candidate's Federal 
Election Commission reports, it is subject to Federal regulation of 
limits, and it is publicly disclosed. No individual can give more than 
$1,000 per election in a cycle. And no political action committee can 
give more than $5,000 per election in a cycle. That money has to be 
disclosed. The name, the occupation, and the address of the individual 
contributing the money has to go on a report and it is made available 
to the public. If the public is not aggressive in seeking that 
information, the candidate's opponents will make sure that the public 
is well aware of who is contributing to the campaign.
  The press, particularly, is vigilant in disclosing the campaign 
contributions to individuals, so that the constituents know who is 
funding this campaign, who is giving how much. But all of that is 
regulated. All of that has a lid on it. But that is the money for which 
the candidate goes out and makes his pitch, calls together a group of 
people for a coffee or a reception in a home or in a banquet hall, says 
I am running for Congress, this is what I stand for, here is my 
experience and this is what I will do if elected and I urge your 
support, and if you see fit, I would like your help, I would like your 
financial support. That is how we raise our money, and we are supported 
by you.
  Currently groups under what is called political action committee--
those political action committees actually assemble money from members 
of their association or their group, and make contributions of up to 
$5,000 per election per cycle.
  When I first ran in 1980, the Indiana Farm Bureau called me in and I 
sat down before a group of their representatives who had been elected 
and designated to represent each county of the 10 counties in the 
congressional district that I was seeking to represent. I spent about 
an hour with them. They asked me questions about my beliefs on farm 
policies, and agriculture, and they wanted to know my experience and my 
background, and what qualified me to run for office. They wanted to 
know, if elected, what kind of representative I would be, and how 
seriously I would treat agriculture issues, and what my understanding 
was of their livelihood.
  Each candidate came in at a different time, back to back, and they 
evaluated it. I was fortunate enough, when a vote was taken, to receive 
a majority of their support. They said Dan Coats is the person that we 
are going to back in this congressional election.
  They made a recommendation to their financial people, and those 
finance people had collected roughly $1 from each individual that chose 
to contribute to the Farm Bureau Political Action Committee. They gave 
me a check for, I believe it was $3,000 for my campaign. They said this 
represents contributions from 3,000 farmers across 10 counties, because 
it averages out to about $1 per recipient.
  It is a way that the people involved in agriculture, farmers, could 
say, this is what we want out of a representative. We support you, 
because we believe you understand our issues and you will stand for 
what we believe in Washington.
  It was not just agricultural issues. They wanted to know how I felt 
about the debt. ``We have kids we are raising, we do not want to load 
this debt on them any more than you do. And we have got mortgages we 
have to pay off. We have equipment in debt. Lower interest rates are 
important to our future. So we want somebody that will carefully spend 
our hard-earned taxpayer dollars and won't go to Washington and waste 
it all or spend it all on those pork barrel, unnecessary expenditures 
we read about all of the time.'' I was proud to receive both their 
endorsement and their support.
  But now, hard money and soft money.
  Hard money, those are the contributions we receive. What people who 
support us, and are willing to reach into their pocketbook or wallet 
and write a check to us, that is what they are willing to put up. And 
to guard against abuse, they are limited in terms of how much they can 
give, and their names have to be disclosed to the public as to their 
contribution.
  But soft money is not subject to those limitations and regulations. 
Soft money is undisclosed and unlimited under Federal election law. 
That is money that is used--it goes to State organizations, State 
parties, and other organizations that put out get-out-the-vote efforts. 
They print bumper stickers, they set up phone banks, but they are 
outside the direction of the candidate. It can be used for desirable 
purposes. It can be an indication of healthy political participation.
  Proponents of both the Senate- and House-passed versions of the bill, 
however, would like us to believe that soft money is the sole province 
of the political parties. That no other entity outside of political 
parties utilize this soft money. And that since their proposal--because 
the proposal before us designates the political party's soft money 
ability, the proponents of this bill claim and maintain that this 
solves the soft money problem.
  I am here to tell you today, it does not solve the problem, because 
the fact is, political parties are not the only players in the so-
called soft money game. Labor unions and other groups are big, big, big 
players in this effort.
  And that, Madam President, is where the problem lies. Not in the 
political party soft money, the party efforts that go on every election 
to register voters, to identify voters, to get the vote out on election 
day, to print the posters and to make the phone calls. In my opinion, 
those are legitimate activities. Those are volunteers working on behalf 
of either the Republican Party or Democratic Party, working down at 
headquarters, working in a phone bank, calling at night, doing the 
mailing. That is legitimate exercise.
  The scandal lies not in the political party soft money, but in 
regulated, unreported, and unlimited special interest soft money, 
particularly that money spent by groups with tax-exempt status, and by 
some of the union groups. Fundamental difference, I would state, 
between political parties and other entities influencing the outcome of 
elections.
  Now while it is true that the Democrat Senate committee this year has 
spent a lot of money trying to influence the health care reform debate, 
political parties for the most part do not have a legislative agenda.
  Generally, the Democratic National Committee, like the Republican 
National Committee, has a basic criteria for support, and that is that 
the candidate be a viable candidate of that particular party. And 
though it is true liberals tend to be Democrats and conservatives tend 
to be Republicans, and obviously there are exceptions to that, both the 
DNC and RNC support candidates of all philosophical stripes.
  That is not the case, however, when it comes to other sources of soft 
money. According to most estimates, more than $100 million in special-
interest soft money is spent in each election cycle. This nonparty soft 
money funds huge shadow campaigns which exert a tremendous influence on 
the electoral process.
  Let me give an example. On the North American Free-Trade Agreement 
and on the striker replacement bill, which both Houses took up this 
year, various organizations stated flatly that there would be a quid 
pro quo for the vote of a particular Member. If they voted against the 
position of that organization on either of those two legislative 
items--voted the wrong way, against the one and for the other--that 
political support, soft money support, would be withheld in the next 
election. That is not an inconsequential threat for some candidates, 
because some candidates rely, to an extraordinary extent, not on 
contributions from constituents but on the soft money efforts of some 
of these organizations. They are very generous givers of soft money and 
receivers of soft money, and it has an enormous influence.
  A lot of money has been raised this year by the administration from 
soft money efforts. In a passage of President Clinton's campaign book 
``Putting People First,'' he writes that ``American politics is being 
held hostage to big money interests.'' Members of Congress now collect 
more than $2.5 million in campaign funds every week. While the industry 
lobbies in checks of $100,000, donors buy access to Congress and the 
White House.
  Yet, ironically, even the liberal watchdog group Common Cause 
reported during the past 21 months that the DNC raised $40 million from 
corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals whose giving does 
not fall under Federal campaign finance spending laws. In other words, 
it is not regulated and not reported because it is soft money. That is 
$40 million in just the last 21 months, as reported by Common Cause.
  An article in the Hartford Courant said:

       President Clinton has become the principal beneficiary of 
     the corrupt campaign finance system that continues to thrive 
     and prosper in Washington.

  That was a quote from Fred Wertheimer of Common Cause.
  Madam President, I have much more that I could say and that I would 
like to say, but I note that my colleague from Wyoming has arrived on 
the floor. I will conclude my time here by reiterating my compliments 
to the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], who is directing this 
effort, to ensure that the American people understand what it is we are 
doing here, and to ensure that they understand that in the last waning 
hours of this Congress, the entitlement of all entitlements, the 
entitlement paid for by the American taxpayer to free up a pot of funds 
for 535 Members of the U.S. Congress, is attempting to be created.
  We, as I said before, are going to take whatever time we can possibly 
use under the rules to make sure the American people understand what is 
attempting to be perpetrated by this Congress, by this bill placed 
before us in the waning hours of the Senate--the ``Incumbent's 
Protection Entitlement Program.'' It is an outrage, and as Republicans, 
we will do anything we can to stop this from being perpetrated on the 
American taxpayer.
  I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, before the Senator from Indiana 
leaves, let me thank him for his spectacular contribution to this 
discussion. At the end, he certainly summed up what we are about here, 
which is killing bad legislation. And we do it proudly, to let the Sun 
shine in on what is in this piece of legislation, as the Senator 
pointed out. We want the American people to know about this 
legislation. I thank him for spending an hour of his time to help the 
American people learn more about the underlying bill.
  I see that our distinguished Republican whip is here, bright-eyed, 
alert, and ready to do battle for an hour.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, while certainly the manager of this 
measure is still looking very alert and dapper, the rest of us look 
rather haggard. But this effort is something we feel we must do. I have 
been legislating now for about 30 years. I was the majority leader of 
the Wyoming House of Representatives and would often keep the House in 
session late into the evening--like all night. It is something that the 
leader must sometimes do. I think that is a very important thing for 
the people of America to understand.
  I greatly commend my friend from Kentucky. I have learned much about 
him. He is an extraordinary man of remarkable persistence and 
direction. When he zeros in, it is like a laser beam, a homing device, 
and he sticks with it. That is a trait I have always admired of those 
in either party--``stick-to-itiveness,'' sticking with your principles. 
If you feel strongly about something, do not just talk about it, do it.
  There are a lot of people in this arena, in both the House and 
Senate, who talk a good game, or ``talk the talk,'' but do not ``walk 
the walk.'' That is not the case of my friend from Kentucky. He is 
superb. I admire him greatly.
  Well, here we are again with campaign finance reform. I am opposed to 
moving this body further down the legislative road of enacting so-
called campaign finance reform legislation, which is, in reality, 
simply an effort to maintain the very worst aspects of current law, and 
then pay for the changes proposed to the current law with taxpayer 
funds. Republican alternatives, which were rejected on party-line 
votes, were aimed at resolving some of the real problems with current 
campaign finance laws.
  The real problems are the special interest PAC's that seek to buy 
access with their contributions--while abandoning any semblance of 
political ideology. They gave up their role, in my mind, many years 
ago. Now they just give to both parties. We have a word for that in the 
lexicon of social activities, but I shall leave it out. They just give 
to whoever they think is going to be the winning ``horse.'' Long ago, 
they gave up giving on the basis of their ideology, their philosophy. 
They no longer give to a candidate because they agree with his or her 
philosophy.
  No, they simply want to be players. It must be embarrassing to PAC 
directors from time to time to see their names listed both by the 
Republican and the Democrat after an election. And, as we in the West 
know, it is very  difficult to ride a horse like that, with one leg on 
one and one leg on the other. Of course, speaking of that, you know the 
difference between a horse race and a political race. In a horse race, 
the entire horse runs. Sometimes that is not the case in political 
activity.

  Another real problem which is not addressed by the Democrats is 
``soft money.'' Certain remarkable ``worthies'' set up their phone 
banks on the outskirts of the village, out by the parapets, beyond the 
village wall, and then engage in character assassination of candidates. 
They are funded by contributions that are not even required to be 
disclosed to the Federal Election Commission. The funds are called 
``soft money.'' Its use is a terrible abuse of the system. The New York 
Times was correct to call it ``sewer money.''
  The New York times is not always correct--not often enough, at least, 
with this loyal correspondent. Lately, they have even left a couple of 
letters out of their masthead motto. But that is another story. I will 
go into that at some future time.
  Our proposal would have eliminated the nonparty ``sewer money''. And 
this conference report, if enacted, would not even touch it--would not 
even touch it. I have seen that little ``sewer money'' operation with 
phone banks. It will happen again this year. It hasn't started yet, but 
when it does, the antennae of those in our party will go up very 
swiftly. It is a very simple operation. You hire a bunch of near 
``automatons who man the telephones. I've heard this one used against 
Republican: ``Do you know this is the jerk who would take away your 
Social Security?'' That is a very interesting comment to come over the 
phone. It is designed to send a chill through you, and it does. They 
say: You would not want that jerk as your Congressman. So we hope you 
will vote against that person.''
  It is a very clever device. It works. If it did not work, they would 
not do it. The unions love to play this game, especially in a small 
State like Wyoming, where they think they can buy an election ``on the 
cheap.'' That offensive to the people of Wyoming. We are not ``on the 
cheap.'' But I saw them try to do it to my friend, Malcolm Wallop, in 
his last election campaign in Wyoming. It was a crude exercise. They 
set up the phone banks, and ran last-minute ads in his election. And 
two elections cycles before that, there was a remarkable ad. It was a 
woman in a tattered cotton dress, toddling down her walkway to open her 
mailbox, which she did wringing her hands in appropriately pathetic 
fashion. She opened the mailbox and looked inside and said, ``My Social 
Security check is gone. I wonder what happened to it.'' And then the 
headline said: ``Malcolm Wallop took it.'' It was one of the most 
remarkable ads. The woman was actually quite healthy and is still going 
strong. But, she looked pathetically frail in that particular scene. 
However, she was actually quite robust. It was an effective ad, and it 
went around the State of Wyoming very swiftly. Malcolm Wallop had 
picked that poor old lady's Social Security check right out of her 
mailbox, I guess, in the stealth of the morning hour.
  That is the kind of thing that we get. And the phone bank people then 
use that, and parlay it into even more hysteria. Do not think that 
around October 20 of this year, or October 25, that these little 
operations will not be geared up all around America with gusto. They 
can sense what is coming, but it is going to come anyway, whether they 
set up the phone banks or not.
  Another real problem with the current system is collecting huge sums 
of money from folks who live outside your State and cannot even vote 
for you, yet they try to seek influence with their contributions.
  Our bill attempted to reduce that influence by reducing maximum 
contributions from individuals living out of a Member's State from 
$1,000 to $500.
  Why in the world should one individual from my home State of Wyoming 
be entitled to contribute to my campaign, but another might be 
prohibited from contributing by virtue of an arbitrary limit?
  Our proposal would not have limited participation of in-State 
contributors to a congressional campaign (other than current limits on 
maximum contributions of $1,000 per individual). It really makes no 
sense to provide a cap on the total contributions a candidate could 
receive from folks who he represents or wants to represent. We are not 
talking about PAC's. We are not talking about soft money. We are 
talking about our constituents. A bipartisan panel of experts appointed 
by Senator George Mitchell and Senator Bob Dole concluded in their 
report that the real evil in the system lies in the source, the source 
of the money. And our campaign finance reform bill attacked those 
sources which the bipartisan panel found suspect.
  We would have eliminated nonparty soft money. We would have 
eliminated PAC's. We tried to reduce the maximum amount of out-of-State 
individual contributions. In summary, we tried to closely track the 
proposals of the bipartisan panel by the Democrat and the Republican 
leader.
  We provided for flexible fundraising targets. Exempted from those 
targets were in-State contributions and out-of-State contributions of 
$250 or less. Acceptance of those targets would have entitled the 
candidate for reduced broadcast rates and reduced postal rates.
  We all know regardless of party what happens to us in the election 
cycle with broadcast rates. It is much like the West. When someone 
understands that the Federal Government is involved in purchasing 
something or purchasing land, then suddenly the price of sagebrush 
really goes up.
  So they see us coming. We are like boys and girls on the ``turnip 
truck'' on the edge of town, and they nail us on the rates. The rate 
system can be confusing. I never have figured out the point system that 
they use, but you need to be an atomic scientist to figure it out. But 
whatever it is, it is designed to extract bucks from candidates. 
Someday Congress will do something with that issue, but it is very 
difficult to take on those who can hammer us flat. And we are not very 
good at even trying that.

  Reduced postal rates is another issue which we will pursue that again 
at another time.
  We also tried to encourage greater party participation. However, it 
should be noted that ultimately political parties disclose all their 
expenditures.
  Unlike ``sewer money'' schemes concocted by associations, businesses, 
and unions, our proposal fully empowered the individual and the 
election process, particularly the in-State voter, eliminated PAC's and 
``sewer money.'' We reduced the clout of those who cannot even vote for 
us in our States.
  What we did not do was foist the cost of congressional elections on 
the American taxpayer. What we did not do was to provide an incumbent 
protection plan by reducing the opportunities for challengers to beat 
entrenched incumbents. What we tried to do was to follow the guidance 
of experts selected by the leaders on both sides of the aisle to assist 
us in achieving a fair, reasonable, and sensible campaign finance 
reform bill--and we had such a bill. We offered various provisions from 
it during our debate in June 1993. Although we had some Democratic 
support, these efforts were rejected, substantially along strict party 
lines.
  It is unfortunate that the bills which the Democrat majority submits 
each and every year in tedium ad nauseam on this issue are 
substantially the same and, of course, the philosophical objections 
which we raise to those bills are nothing new either. It is perplexing. 
These Democratic initiatives continue to contain the core elements of 
those measures year after year after year. The same litany--taxpayer 
financing, ``food stamps for politicians,'' as our leader from Kentucky 
calls them; spending limits, inadequate control over ``sewer money,'' 
because that is the life blood for some of them; and less than due 
diligence in trying to eliminate PAC money.'' That is the 
understatement of the century.
  Despite the fact the Republicans have tried to follow what the 
bipartisan panel advised us to do on the issue, it is the height of 
irony in this annual affair that Republicans are characterized by the 
Democrats as being obstructionists. And many in the media sadly and 
unfortunately seem to buy that characterization hook, line, and sinker.

  I believe in the principles which we incorporated in our bill, and we 
are going to stick together to support those principles.
  We believe that the House and Senate must play by the same rules. Now 
hear that. We believe that. If we are going to do a congressional bill, 
then it should apply to both Houses of Congress equally.
  If certain kinds of campaign practices are unacceptable for one body 
in Congress, they should not be permitted in the other. Nevertheless, 
some Democrat leaders believe we ought to have two different sets of 
rules, one for the House and one for the Senate. How absurd.
  If Republicans are going to be called obstructionists by saying both 
Houses of the Congress of the United States of America should abide by 
the same rule or if we are going to be called the masters of gridlock 
because we do not agree that taxpayers should fund our campaigns, then 
I say so be it.
  This is what we believe. Most Americans want us to do this. And we 
believe that and we believe we have tried and will continue to try to 
achieve real reform, and we have tried, and thoughtful Democrats have 
assisted.
  The President and the Democrats in Congress ran for office and 
espoused certain views and principles. They have a right to feel that 
they have a compact with the voters to pursue those principles. What is 
curious, most curious, in the accusations leveled at Democrats by 
Republicans is that their compact is not unique. They do not have a 
monopoly. Congressional Republicans also ran for public office. We were 
elected based on our principles, too. The voters that sent us here are 
no less important than those who elected Democrats to office. We too 
have a compact with our constituents to stand by the principles on 
which we were elected. And we intend to stick by those principles. Even 
if our efforts are not adroitly enough portrayed by the national media, 
we are going to do that.
  Republicans have very few checks on the Democratic majority in both 
Houses and the Democrat in the White House. I think they are finding 
out that we are here, and we do participate, as we should in any 
democracy. I believe that we have very prudently used our procedural 
rights to work in the best interests of our country.
  For instance, we have reduced spending levels by billions of dollars 
in various bills, like the National Service Act and  the so-called 
Competitiveness Act. We have made very positive changes in the motor-
voter bill, which we referred to ``auto fraudo.'' We made positive 
changes with the crime bill. We made positive changes in the Hatch Act. 
We have defeated the ill-conceived measures like the stimulus package, 
and rangeland reform. That was of grave interest to my State, maybe not 
to many others. It was a fascinating debate. You would have thought we 
would have solved the entire budget problems of the United States just 
by sticking it to the ``cowboys'' in the West. It was fascinating. The 
entire cost of grazing fees is $30 million. That is it.

  I sit here and watch the farm bill roll through here and I believe 
that we do $3.2 billion of support for corn, $2.4 billion for wheat. 
And as to the old cowboys out in the West, if we said: ``You guys are 
going to pay $5 an animal unit.'' We would only be talking about $30 
million. Yet we spent days listening to the President, to the Secretary 
of the Interior, and we heard dramatic, hysterical hyperbole. And it 
was all for naught. Nothing came of it, because it was really about 
fairness.
  If you are going to deal fairly on an issue that is just about money, 
then you deal fairly on the other issues that are just about money. But 
what that really was, very simply, was people who have been waiting in 
the wings for 12 years for George Bush and Ronald Reagan to depart. 
They have been in their warrens and burrows on K Street waiting to get 
people and animals off the public land. Nothing more. Nothing. Forget 
all the rest of it. It does not even ring.
  That is the way it works in this town. There is a reason for 
everything but then there is a ``real reason'' for everything. One of 
my most pleasant experiences--and I enjoy it thoroughly--is to try to 
find out the ``real reason'' for something rather than the one that is 
in the paper or the one one's opponent is speaking of with great vigor. 
Finding the ``real reason'' is always an interesting quest.
  We also used our procedural rights, with bipartisan help, to kill the 
striker replacement bill. Major media editorialists agreed that it was 
a bad bill, a very bad bill, and they commended our efforts. We 
appreciate that. Of course that was a bad policy which needed to be 
defeated. That was not Republican gridlock.
  As an aside, the House Democrats Study Group recently advocated 
eliminating the right of the minority--any minority, regional or 
otherwise--to conduct a filibuster. I guess that organization felt that 
eliminating that procedural right is what American voters wanted. I 
disagree.
  I do not mean any ill-will by this, but on Tuesday the chairman of 
that study group was defeated in a primary election. He and I did not 
always agree. But I can tell you I would rather do business with him 
than many because when he came at you, it was like a Mack truck with 
six headlights right down the highway. I like dealing with people like 
that. The ones I have difficulty with are those who smile and slip you 
the ``slider.'' Fortunately there are not many of those.
  Nevertheless, as I say, I did not agree with him on many issues 
including our right to use the filibuster. He was often vexatious to 
our people in the West, but he very deeply believed in what he was 
doing. And I admire that, just as I admire that trait in Senator 
McConnell.
  I guess the point I make is that maybe, just maybe, the Republicans 
are not simply just a bunch of Cro-Magnons who have crept out of a cave 
in some prehistoric hillside, bent on disrupting great, lofty ideas, 
for an ever expanding role of the Federal Government in our lives.
  Maybe we are sincere and, God forbid, even right--I know that is 
shocking--on issues every now and then. Maybe most Americans really do 
want us to provide a check on Government controlled by one party.
  I think we are going to see a remarkable history lesson on that in 
the other body on November 8. I think it is going to be very much like 
what happened in Canada and Japan and Italy--great democracies, all--
where they just swept people out in the snow with a big broom. Who 
would have ``thunk'' it? I think that will happen.
  We passed a campaign finance bill in June 1993 right here. The House 
passed their version in November 1993. Republicans have not even been 
``in the loop'' on this bill for nearly a year. Hear that; it is very 
important to hear that; we have not even been consulted.
  The game here is played by the Democrats. The only gridlock that you 
really missed in the last 10 months with regard to this measure has 
been Democrats fighting with Democrats about the importance of PAC 
money. And, boy, they do not like to do that one in public. But they 
were even doing it yesterday in the subterranean halls, and they still 
cannot agree.
  In fact, all the bills which have worked their way to this last gasp 
of Congress are similar in that if they had enjoyed the support of the 
Democratic majority in both Houses--remember who runs the shop; the 
Democrats run this shop and the Democrats run the House shop--if they 
had agreed, it would have been enacted into law by now regardless of 
what we wanted to do as Republicans. There is a story behind the twists 
and the turns each bill takes through the legislative process.
  And I say to young participants who may be observing these 
proceedings, it is not quite like it is taught in the civics texts. It 
is not quite like that little flow chart of ``here is how a bill gets 
started and here is where it goes and here is where it comes out.'' Not 
quite. No, no.
  It is very similar to a play, a great Greek play or Shakespearean 
play. If you go backstage during this particular play, you will hear 
the sounds of Democrats grunting, mud wrestling, fighting with each 
other, fighting with fellow Democrats. And where are the Republicans? 
We are not even in the cast. We are not in the cast. We are lucky to 
even be in the theater. In fact, we are in what we used to call ``the 
nickel seats''; in the old-time days of Vaudeville, they called them 
the ``nickel seats.''

  We were not even part of this, ladies and gentlemen. This is all 
theirs and they cannot agree. Now they have dumped the dump truck right 
out here on the floor.
  We have very little time left in Congress. What we are considering 
today is the possible passage of legislation which would finance 
Federal elections with taxpayer dollars. At a time when the focus of 
our Nation is on reducing the Federal deficit and Americans are telling 
us to cut spending, can the Democrats really be serious about reform if 
they are advocating a costly new entitlement program for politicians?
  Senator McConnell, who has done such a superb job as our floor 
manager on this issue, calls these Federal subsidies ``food stamps for 
politicians.'' That is really what they amount to. And the American 
people truly do not want them.
  With the limited time we have in this Congress, why do we not use it 
wisely? We have a lot to do. The majority leader has given us his list. 
There are some things there that are critical.
  I think one of the most critical is congressional reform; how we do 
our business; what we do with committees; how many are on committees. 
It is odd to me that when we get into that there are those in the House 
who are laying it on us, as to the use of the filibuster; that that 
somehow is totally un-American.
  Well, the filibuster has been used more often in recent times for a 
very simple reason, and that is to prevent the minority from offering 
nongermane amendments which have merit but the other side would perfer 
not to vote on. Got it? If a bill is being considered by the Senate, 
under our rules you can generally add a nongermane amendment. So people 
on our side say, ``Boy, here is my chance. The majority stiffed me in 
subcommittee. They stiffed me in committee. I never got to offer this. 
And here we go, I am going to offer it now.''
  And the leadership on the other side and the Members on the other 
side know the amendment will pass, because it has merit and it is 
right. And they know it. So then they file cloture very swiftly without 
waiting.
  That is what you are seeing. You are not seeing the filibuster 
misused. You are seeing the filing of cloture misused. Get it. Hear it. 
Do not miss it. Because if you get cloture, then nongermane amendments 
cannot be offered. You have to stick with germane amendments.

  So listen. Hear it. It is nothing you can cover in a talk show. And I 
think they are a detriment in some ways on both sides to the work of 
Congress, where they come on during the day and say, ``Well, let's 
check in and see what the clowns in the circus are doing down in 
Washington.'' That is not a service to this country.
  There are people here on both sides of the aisle who work like dogs; 
and there are some that do not, just like talk show people. But we do 
not solve things here with 30-second sound bites, even 2-minute sound 
bites. We solve things by camaraderie and comity, which is real. It is 
real today among our Members, and is a very important part of this 
place. You do not see that.
  Surely it is never reported because things that work are never 
reported. When Congress works well and does its work--and we have done 
a lot of legislation this year, it doesn't get reported. You would 
never know it, because when we do it right, it is back on page 17 in 
the Metro section. When we do it wrong, it is above the ``fold,'' as we 
say.
  It is the old ``toe test'' of the newspaper, which is if you go out 
in the morning and you kick the newspaper and you find your name above 
the fold, you know you are in trouble.
  So that is how it is reported here that we ``do nothing.'' Yet we do 
a great deal. There are people who work and have dedicated themselves 
to this institution on both sides of the aisle. I am very proud to see 
them as they work.
  So, why do we not get at some of these other things? Why do we not 
get at the congressional reform?
  People are urging me to deal with immigration and refugee matters. 
And I, with a bipartisan group, am ready to proceed. I think we may 
have a little time that we did not think we had before.
  Health care is now gone aglimmering, I think. I do not want to be 
gleeful about that. I worked very hard with Senator Chafee, Senator 
Danforth, Senator Nickles, Senator Lott, and others, to try to do 
something that would be appropriate. We did not get there, and we will 
deal with it next time. Perhaps there is a framework we can use that 
the ``mainstream group'' is coming up with, a framework we can use next 
year. I do not know that. But certainly we will want to pursue it. 
There is the Rowland-Bilirakis bill in the House, a bipartisan effort. 
Let us pursue that, see where we go.
  But we do know one thing. The President's proposal in any form is not 
acceptable to the American people. And the American public do know what 
employer mandates are, and they know more about employer contributions 
to health care. There are many things that were brought to the 
attention of the American people that had not been brought to their 
attention before.
  I had an interesting experience. A chap came up to me on the street 
and said, ``Don't you understand this is about personal 
responsibility?'' He said, ``If we just took care of ourselves, 
moderate lifestyle, drinking, smoking, preventive care, exercise.'' He 
said, ``In fact, my grandmother started to walk 5 miles a day when she 
was 65 and now she is 97 and we have no idea where she is.''
  Now I do not know if that is a true story, but it certainly had an 
anecdotal semblance.
  So why do we not get back to some of those things? Why do we not turn 
our attention to a bill that has 62 cosponsors which addresses the 
issue of unfunded mandates by the Federal Government which are imposed 
on State and local governments, which is sponsored by a fine bipartisan 
coalition? Senator Kempthorne has been the leader in that effort. He 
has done a magnificent job, and is one of our finest new Members.
  And we have Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, who knows what these 
unfunded mandates do to State and local governments. Why not deal with 
that? Why not get into that? Well, I do not know.
  But I do know this: Unfunded mandates is a critical issue and needs 
to be addressed.
  But back to the original focus of my remarks, and an issue that 
concerns me greatly: How should PAC contributions be dealt with in a 
real reform bill? Judging from press reports, the negotiations between 
the Democrats in the House and the Senate these past 10 months have 
centered on the matter of political action committees.
  Mr. FORD. Would my good friend from Wyoming yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. For a question?
  Mr. FORD. For a question. That is all I wanted. I do not want any 
time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I certainly will.
  Mr. FORD. He knows, and I think I know, that both the unfunded 
mandates and the coverage for Congress the same as others is on the 
list the majority leader has given to the Republican leader and so it 
is there to be done.
  The question that bothers me, you have the same ability when this 
comes back from conference to do what you are doing now, and it will be 
90 hours that will delay the ability to get to unfunded mandates, and 
would be 90 hours that would delay us to get to the coverage that many 
of our constituents want of Congress of the bills we pass. I wonder if 
there is any colloquy or comity that we might enter into that might let 
us get to that and not delay the Senate and not have to go around the 
clock?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I certainly would not want to have 
indicated anything that was erroneous. I was pleased to know from my 
colleague, who is my counterpart as whip, and someone that I enjoy very 
much, although he and I do not always agree, but I trust him implicitly 
when he tells me something.
  I can only say that I hope we do get to unfunded mandates and 
congressional reform. I am sure the discussions can go on, and they 
probably will, as we draw toward the weekend and as we draw toward 
other things on the agenda.
  But, at this particular juncture, we feel that this is the step that 
we must pursue.
  I thank my friend from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. I thank my friend for answering the question. We cannot 
even do work in committees.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, as I was saying, the negotiations 
between the Democrats in the House and Senate these past 10 months have 
centered on this matter of political action committees. More 
specifically, the question has been whether to reduce the limits or to 
eliminate them as the Senate did. This issue, as I say, has tied the 
House and Senate Democrats in knots.
  I should like to offer a refresher on the PAC issue for Members whose 
recollection of this subject may be a bit hazy, because 15 months have 
elapsed since the Senate passed its campaign finance bill and 10 months 
has passed since the House passed its campaign finance bill.
  Members may recall that for several years, Republicans have advocated 
zeroing out PAC contributions for congressional candidates. No 
political action committee contributions to congressional candidates, 
period.
  The majority in the Senate grudgingly went along in 1990, inserting 
the Republican PAC ban provision into their bill before the Senate 
started debating campaign finance that year. The Senate again passed a 
campaign finance bill in 1991 which zeroed out the PAC contributions. 
When that bill was conferenced in 1992, PAC's were back.
  I mean, this stuff is like a werewolf or Count Dracula; it rises out 
of its wooden coffin each year in its same form, and then we drive a 
stake in its heart and back into the hole it goes. We will do that 
again.
  So the real thing that is fascinating here is this--and you do not 
want to miss this--Democrats have loved to play with this issue, and 
they loved it during the years of Ronald Reagan and George Bush because 
they knew that they would just string together a real turkey of a bill 
and ship it to old George Bush. And guess what? George Bush is not here 
any more. No, President Bill Clinton is here. No more George Bush veto 
to have fun with. No more fun and games. No more ``let's throw 
everything in it but the kitchen sink.'' They used to ship it to old 
George Bush and knew he would use his veto pen. Now that was a lot of 
fun. Ship it to George Bush and let him veto it.
  And he did veto it. And then we saw the anguish, the crocodile tears 
running right down their cheeks. Spare us. How could George Bush have 
done this to America? We were trying to correct abuses in the system, 
and George Bush had vetoed this noble effort.
  Well, we may try a few of those next year on the President.
  So after George Bush vetoed the bill amid shrieks and cries that 
would have made Lewis Carroll giggle, they revisited the issue, again 
15 months ago. We zeroed out the PAC's again. So here we go.
  Then, in November, the House rejected the Senate's tough-on-PAC's 
provision and passed a bill that left the PAC contribution at the 
current $10, 000 per election cycle limit.
  And as I say, since then, according to press reports, House and 
Senate Democrats have been at loggerheads over what to do on PAC's. 
Senate Republicans believe very strongly that the political action 
committee contribution limit should be eliminated. House Democrats, 
however, have become quite accustomed to heavy doses of PAC 
contributions.
  It is an addiction. The House Democrats are addicted to PAC money, 
and they do not care to give that up.
  We have no methadone alternative for them, and they know it. They are 
going to find, I think, on November 8, no matter how much they might 
have amassed through their PAC moneys, it is not going to be enough. 
Remember November.
  Madam President, Democrats fighting over PAC money was a formula for 
gridlock. A Washington Post headline last month read ``Democrats Fail 
to Compromise on PAC Limits.''
  They got that right.
  Common Cause, the self-proclaimed definers of what constitutes any 
reform in the world, was terribly worried that the taxpayer-funded 
spending limits bill was going to come  crashing down because of PAC's. 
So they stepped into the breach and loaded themselves into the cannon 
with a proposal to allow a $2,500 PAC limit. Common Cause proposed to 
House Democrats that they agree to split the difference with the Senate 
and lower the PAC contribution limit to $2,500. This would still be 
2\1/2\ times more than an individual could give, but Common Cause 
believed that this could get the campaign finance package through the 
Senate.

  Despite the Senate's 86 to 11 vote last year to zero out PAC 
contributions--hear that; that was the vote, 86 to 11 to zero out PAC 
contributions--Common Cause thought the Senate would roll over and 
accede to a $2,500 per election, $5,000 per cycle PAC level.
  Common Cause has urged House Democrats to swallow the $2,500 limit 
because it would in fact not be a bitter pill to swallow; it would be a 
sugar-coated pill. As Common Cause's own communique to House Democrats, 
dated June 29 stated:

       Adding a cut in the individual PAC limit to the bill would 
     not have a significant impact on House Members.

  How about that?
  Further, Common Cause studied the House Democrats' PAC habit, this 
addictive habit, and found that ``only 2 percent of House Democrats' 
total campaign receipts would have been cut'' if the $2,500 limit were 
adopted. So now Common Cause is urging House Democrats to go with the 
$2,500 limit, because to do so would, in fact, be the same as doing 
nothing, I guess. That is the way I read it. It would make the public 
believe that something was being done to reduce PAC influence when, in 
fact, obviously, by their own commentaries, it was not.
  I guess it really does not matter anyway. Even though we still find 
the $2,500 limit too high, the House Democrats are too tightly bound to 
PAC dollars to reduce the PAC contributions by as much as half.
  Interesting work. A little more history.
  While PAC's are often thought of as a recent phenomenon, in fact, 
they date back to the 1940's. Labor unions, prohibited by law in 1943 
from making direct contributions to candidates in Federal elections, 
began to set aside separate segregated funds to conduct fundraising and 
contribution activities on behalf of their organizations. Corporations 
did not follow labor's lead. Corporations had been prohibited since 
1907 from making contributions to Federal election campaigns, and were 
reluctant to start PAC's.
  In the early 1970's, a number of legal, judicial, and administrative 
actions resulted in PAC proliferation. Since passage of the Federal 
Election Campaign Act in 1974, the number of PAC's increased from 608 
to 4,729 in 1992. Total PAC contributions to Federal election 
candidates increased from $8.5 million in 1972 to $189 million in 1992.
  In 1992, PAC contributions comprised 24 percent of Senate campaign 
receipts and 38 percent of House campaign receipts. House incumbent 
Democrats have been particularly reliant on PAC's to fund their 
campaigns. PAC's accounted for 52 percent of their campaign receipts in 
the 1992 election cycle, so House Democrats are understandably highly 
sensitive on this grave issue.
  PAC's are touted by their defenders as a means to allow individuals 
to get together and advance their collective interest in politics. 
Presumably, that would include supporting  challengers, you would 
think. Yet, in 1992, in races where Members were up for reelection, 
incumbents received 86 percent of the PAC contributions, amounting to 
$126 million for incumbents versus $21 million for challengers.

  Overall, they laid the bread out and they have laid it on anyone who 
could do anything for them regardless of party, and regardless of their 
original philosophy. So they have done this, increasingly funneling 
contributions to incumbents, with little or no regard for ideology, 
philosophy, or voting records. Corporate PAC's are among the worst, 
giving upward of 90 percent of their PAC contributions to incumbents.
  So they do not support candidates of like mind. They buy access to 
the powers that be and epitomize the special-interest influence that 
has eroded the American people's confidence in government. And that is 
why Republicans and some thoughtful Democrats have led the fight to 
zero out PAC contributions.
  Democrats, recipients of two-thirds of the PAC money in congressional 
elections, did not address the issue until 3 days before the Senate 
debate on campaign finance reform was scheduled to commence in 1990. At 
that time, a new Democratic reform bill, which included the Republican 
PAC ban, was announced by the majority leader.
  After years of pushing bills designed solely to seize the high ground 
on the reform issue, totally secure in the knowledge that President 
George Bush would veto taxpayer funding measures, Democrats are now in 
the position of formulating a bill they will have to live with after 
President Clinton signs it into law. That is what this is all about. 
This turkey is going to get signed, and they are in shock--the turkey 
being the Democrat-drafted conference report. So they are going to have 
to live with it after President Clinton signs it into law, and that may 
explain why, in early 1993, that the PAC ban provision Senate Democrats 
included in 1990 suddenly disappeared.
  Just prior to the May and June 1993 floor debate, Democrats did 
include somewhat of a PAC contribution ban in their bill. A Republican 
amendment prior to final passage of the bill strengthened the 
provision. And after the bill passed the Senate, the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives announced that the PAC contribution ban was 
not acceptable, and Senate and House Democrats have been squabbling 
about it ever since.
  Madam President, I urge the Senate to stand firm on the PAC ban 
issue, or an already bad bill will be made a great deal worse. And, of 
course, the real issue is that the drums are pounding out in the land, 
and incumbents are hearing that, and they want to do something, but 
they do not know what. So we are here to help them to know what.
  Madam President, I am now nearly about to head to the Entitlements 
Commission meeting, which is an egregious exercise, because there are 
32 of us who will head over there to do the Nation's business. We have 
outlined the horror of what is happening. In the year 2029, the Social 
Security System will be broke. Broke. Got it?
  That is not Ronald Reagan speaking; that is not George Bush speaking; 
that is the Social Security trustees. That is Lloyd Bentsen, a very 
respected friend. Donna Shalala, Barbara Breach, and civilian trustees 
have told us that the Social Security System will be flat busted in the 
year 2029, and they moved the doomsday date up 7 years.
  So we will go over and deal with that.
  We also want you all to be aware that 32 of us, with one abstention, 
have agreed that unless we raise revenue--that is called taxes, got 
it?--that the present stream of revenue in the United States, in the 
year 2012 will only be sufficient to take care of Medicare, Medicaid, 
Social Security, and Federal retirement. There will be nothing--
nothing--left for education, transportation, or defense. We will go 
over today, and hear every group in America howl and shriek and scream 
that we are so pleased we have presented these facts and have agreed to 
these facts. Then they will prattle and puff their feathers and tell us 
they want everything ``on the table'', and they will proceed to tell us 
they want everything off the table that has to do with their 
organization.
  It is an exercise. And I hope all of you will read of our noble 
efforts as we do this on your behalf and touch the ``third rail of 
politics--Social Security.''
  I yield the floor.
  (Mr. FEINGOLD assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. McCONNELL.  Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has indicated he 
wanted to use a few moments, which I have no objection to, provided it 
is simply charged to the 30 hours we are in the process of using here. 
Consequently, I will yield the floor. But, first, I say to my friend 
that the Chair has been admonishing us all along that everything we say 
should be relevant to campaign finance. So it would not surprise me 
that in the name of fairness the Chair might admonish the Senator from 
Massachusetts, unless his observations are about campaign finance. I 
certainly have no objection to the Senator from Massachusetts using 
some of the 30 hours.

                          ____________________